The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

The other Herman Cain thread started as a discussion of his economic plan and then spiraled into discussion that I thought needed it's own thread.

He is a opinion from the Washington Post this morning...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-herman-cain-crack-up/2011/11/02/gIQAfyuAgM_story.html


The Hermanator is now the hunted.

Herman Cain, the long-shot Republican presidential candidate turned frontrunner, has done just about everything wrong since news broke Sunday night that his former employer had paid two women to settle sexual harassment complaints against him.

Cain denied it. He said the women didn't understand his humor. He said his accusers fabricated the charges. He said he couldn't remember the details, then suddenly he could. He said he had no knowledge of the settlement, then suddenly recalled some details, which turned out to be vastly understated. He publicly predicted more allegations would surface. He blamed his opponents, he howled about racism, and he accused the media and the entire city of Washington of trying to do him in.

On Wednesday morning, he raised the paranoia dial another notch. "There are factions trying to destroy me personally, and this campaign," he announced, revealing this conspiracy to a group of technology executives at the Ritz-Carlton in Tyson's Corner. At his next stop, a Hilton hotel in Alexandria, the amiable candidate finally blew his stack – and the scene quickly escalated into violence. It began when a reporter asked Cain if he would release his accusers from their confidentiality agreements.

""Don't even bother asking me all of these other questions that y'all are curious about," Cain snapped. "Okay? Don't even bother."

"It's a good question," the reporter pointed out. "Are you concerned?" asked another.

Evidently, Cain was. "What did I say?" he hissed at the reporters, then attempted to break through the pack, shouting: "Excuse me. Excuse me! EXCUSE ME!" At that, his bodyguards began throwing elbows and shoving the reporters and photographers. "Stand back! . . . Do not push me! . . . Pushing is against the law!. . . Watch out!. . . Get a grip on yourself!" In the melee, a young boy and his father were shoved up against a wall. "What part of 'no' don't some people understand?" Cain grumbled. His campaign's fisticuffs with Washington journalists probably won't do Cain any harm among his supporters in Iowa; in fact, it will probably help. But Cain's loss of control is a reminder of why he's never going to be president, no matter how high he rises in GOP primary polls.

His presidential bid was meant to be a lark, likely a gambit to increase speaking fees and book sales, perhaps to gain him a gig on cable news. At first, he was in on the joke, gaming the primary process and making up policies as he went along. He drank alcohol during public appearances, even in the morning. He allowed the release of a bizarre ad showing his chief of staff blowing smoke. He greeted female interviewers as "sweetheart" and occasionally gave them hugs. His staff celebrated his quirks in a don't-feed-the-animals memo to those aides traveling in a car with the candidate: "Do not speak to him unless you are spoken to."

It was, at its very core, a preposterous premise: That a man who, as the former head of a big Washington trade group, was at the very heart of this town's lobbying culture, would run a campaign as the ultimate political outsider. He would claim that running for president "didn't start as a consideration until after President Obama took office" – even though Cain ran for president once before, in 2000.

But like the Duchy of Grand Fenwick in the Peter Sellers film "The Mouse that Roared," Cain found himself triumphant against all odds. "We are surprised we're doing so well so fast," he acknowledged to the business leaders in Tyson's Corner. But now, under the scrutiny that comes with being a top-tier candidate, Cain's lark has become hard labor. The sunny candidate is now snarling and shouting, and obviously not enjoying himself in the least.

He arrived about 45 minutes after he was expected for his breakfast speech at the Ritz, and aides made sure to clear the hallway so that reporters couldn't get within 30 yards of him. He wasted little time getting to his persecution complaints. "There is a force at work here that is much greater than those who would try to destroy me," he said, "and that force is called the voice of the people. That's why we're doing as well as we are in the campaign thus far."

There was silence in the room. "Y'all were supposed to applaud," the candidate said. At the Hilton, his campaign called off the "news conference" it had scheduled with reporters. Instead, Cain gave a few perfunctory words about health care while surrounded by people in white coats; they said they were doctors opposed to Obamacare, but there was no need to wear their white coats to the Hilton ballroom unless they were concerned about coffee spills.

To give the reporters the slip, Cain left the room through a service door, then used a service elevator to escape from the hotel. His chief of staff, the cigarette aficionado, was chased by reporters until he slammed the door of his chauffeur-driven Cadillac, which peeled out.

Next stop: a meeting to discuss health care with lawmakers on Capitol Hill, where a media mob of more than 50 was waiting for him. "Can you tell us why you lost your temper this morning?" Fox News's Chad Pergram asked, as Cain and his entourage walked through the hall. "Should a man whose company paid $35,000 for a woman to keep quiet be president?" asked NBC's Luke Russert.

This time, Cain ignored them. As the party got to the meeting room, his bodyguard resumed his shoving and elbowing, blocking congressional staff and reporters from getting into the meeting. When challenged, the bodyguard explained himself: "I make the rules."

Not anymore.

I'd like to respond to this but could you furnish me a CYA confidentiality agreement for me to sign first......


I love how Cain't is going after Perry now....all's fair in love and politics. So much for the "high tech lynching" escape hatch....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/45171907#45171907


nobody get's it....

how is this pizza man so far along? He has Koch....

The Republican Party is an absolute mess.

Agreed.  I'm a pretty liberal guy, but it would be nice to see an evenheaded (i.e. not religious weirdo or yosemite sam cartoon) Conservative willing to make some consessions to get things done.  It would be interesting to watch someone like Michelle Bachmann try the shuffle to the middle in a general election.  I hope for their sake they can produce a candidate that democrats wouldn't cringe at saying their name preceeded by the word President.  Romney looks like the only one that can keep his head above water, even though he seems like the ugly girl that no one wants to dance with but all the other girls at the dance are crazy...

Quote from: jacobi on November 06, 2011, 02:52:07 PM
Agreed.  I'm a pretty liberal guy, but it would be nice to see an evenheaded (i.e. not religious weirdo or yosemite sam cartoon) Conservative willing to make some consessions to get things done.  It would be interesting to watch someone like Michelle Bachmann try the shuffle to the middle in a general election.  I hope for their sake they can produce a candidate that democrats wouldn't cringe at saying their name preceeded by the word President.  Romney looks like the only one that can keep his head above water, even though he seems like the ugly girl that no one wants to dance with but all the other girls at the dance are crazy...

More likely would be large earthquakes in middle of the coun....wait, what?

The woman/women is suing to have the confidentiality agreement deemed null, arguing that Cain has violated its terms. I'm inclined to think it will be lifted as he has clearly commented and downplayed the event repeatedly, giving a few details - IF he was a party to the agreement. A former aid from the pizza days has stated that if the agreement is lifted his bid is flat out over.

He was a refreshing candidate anyway, kind of flippant and willing to comment as he saw fit.  But probably could not survive.  It will, as it was destined from the start, be Romney.  He will struggle to win because while running in Massachusetts he had largely the same agenda as Obama - his biggest hurdle is the record he is is relying on to prove he can do the job.  Than and too many conservative Christians won't vote for a Mormon.

CjC...In full effect....!!!!!

Yep, Cain's done, though it may take quite awhile for the corpse of his campaign to finally stop kicking.  It may also take awhile for the Tea Party to figure out he's a nonstarter.  The really interesting thing will be to see where they throw their support next.  Assuming Romney and Huntsman will never get that support, will it go to a new candidate (Gingrich, Santorum) or back to a known quantity (Perry, Bachmann).

Quote from: we vs us on November 07, 2011, 09:26:35 AM
Yep, Cain's done, though it may take quite awhile for the corpse of his campaign to finally stop kicking.  It may also take awhile for the Tea Party to figure out he's a nonstarter.  The really interesting thing will be to see where they throw their support next.  Assuming Romney and Huntsman will never get that support, will it go to a new candidate (Gingrich, Santorum) or back to a known quantity (Perry, Bachmann).

That's funny new CBS/WaPo poll has him trailing Romney by one point and they are saying it has not affected his bid significantly.  7 in 10 are saying the allegations aren't affecting their opinion of him.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7387407n

BTW- Anyone know where to get one of the "Honkies For Herman" bumper stickers?  I saw one Friday and nearly ran up a curb I started laughing so hard.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 07, 2011, 09:36:16 AM
7 in 10 are saying the allegations aren't affecting their opinion of him.

Well if 7 in 10 opinions starts off negative...

Quote from: Conan71 on November 07, 2011, 09:36:16 AM
That's funny new CBS/WaPo poll has him trailing Romney by one point and they are saying it has not affected his bid significantly.  7 in 10 are saying the allegations aren't affecting their opinion of him.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7387407n

BTW- Anyone know where to get one of the "Honkies For Herman" bumper stickers?  I saw one Friday and nearly ran up a curb I started laughing so hard.

He's been the favorite anti-Romney for awhile now and like I said, it will be awhile before people can see how dead the campaign really is.  But I think there're more allegations coming, and we're just beginning the discovery portion of this, IMO (supposedly one of the women will be going public today) (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/report-gloria-allred-to-kick-off-next-chapter-of-cain-saga.php?ref=fpblg).  His management of this has been awful . . . and the fact that it's still growing is the A #1 sign of that. 

BTW, I think the harassment allegations will be the biggest blow to the campaign, but his "rapidly evolving" 999 taxation platform, a lot of his ignorance about foreign policy, and his willingness to cozy up to the most controversial of the Tea Party folks (he's the Koch Bros' brother from another mother, natch) might make him a Tea Party favorite but IMO unable to win even the nominating contest much less the general election.

Here's how I see the general shaping up:  The GOP will run Romney whose big problem -- possibly fatal -- will be trying to find a way to appeal to both the rightie base and the restive independents.  Obama's big problem is that he's saddled with an awful economy and he's increasingly being seen as having sold out his base.  At this point those are the two animating conflicts.  It remains to be seen, IMO, whether the GOP gets tarred with shutting Congress down, or it becomes something that both parties get blamed for.  If the GOP gets the blame, I see that as spilling over more into Romney's candidacy a lot; if both parties get the blame, then I see it spilling over only a little onto Obama's re-election.  In general, I don't believe the Democrats solely will get the blame for Congress malfunctioning. I also don't know about the Occupy movement, and whether it fades away, turns violent or obscure, or starts to organize itself to effect the 2012 general.  I've read rumors that some of the Occupy folks want to convene in Philadelphia for a General Congress of sorts to hash out a specific agenda, but that's still only rumor at this point.  Their numbers are still slight nationwide compared with their impact to-date, so I'm not sure  to what extent they will/can influence the general.

You all realize that the Republicontins are putting up all thes clowns and jokers to do two things; use up energy from the other side going after them, and paving a path that will try to make Newt look good comparatively he and his current whore/wife can sneak back in and try again.  Or maybe even Mitt.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 07, 2011, 10:15:49 AM
You all realize that the Republicontins are putting up all this clowns and jokers to do two things; use up energy from the other side going after them, and paving a path that will try to make Newt look good comparatively he and his current whore/wife can sneak back in and try again.  Or maybe even Mitt.

So you're hypothesizing the "well at least it's not that" campaign strategy.

Quote from: Townsend on November 07, 2011, 10:17:12 AM
So you're hypothesizing the "well at least it's not that" campaign strategy.

Just like "anybody but Bush" in 2008.  So we end up with Obama.  I would much prefer to have had McCain with Lieberman as VP, but John was just too 'scared' to do what I think he knew was the right thing, and went with one of the clowns to appease the ignorance and stupidstition side of his party.

I would even rather have had Hillary.  But it is what it is.

A fourth woman has spoken up...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/fourth-accuser-urges-herman-cain-come-clean-harassment-193541143.html

A fourth woman has accused Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain of sexual harassment--this time in public. Sharon Bialek told reporters in a press conference Monday that Cain groped her and exhibited "sexually inappropriate" behavior toward her when he was head of the National Restaurant Association.

Bialek, a former NRA employee who worked for the association in between 1996 and 1997, said the encounter occurred shortly after she was laid off from the group's education fund in July 1997.

She said she had approached Cain for help in looking for a new job and had traveled to Washington, D.C., where she had dinner with the then-NRA head. She told reporters that upon her arrival in D.C. she discovered that Cain had secretly upgraded her hotel room to a suite.

After dinner, the two were sitting in his car when she claimed he "suddenly reached over and put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals" and moved her head toward his crotch.

"I was surprised and shocked, and I said, what are you doing? You know I have a boyfriend," Bialek recalled saying. "This is not what I came here for."

Bialak claimed that when she protested, Cain replied, "You want a job, right?

She told reporters Cain backed off after she asked him to stop, and he drove her back to her hotel.

Bialek, who identified herself as a stay-at-home single mom who lives in Chicago and is a registered Republican, said she didn't file a complaint with the NRA in part because she was no longer formally employed by the group--and also because she was "very embarrassed." She was joined at the press conference by her attorney, celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred, who offered sworn affidavits from two friends to whom Bialek spoke shortly after the alleged encounter.

"I was very very surprised and very shocked," Bialek said, adding that she had come forward to be a "face" for women who had been harassed by Cain. "I want you, Mr. Cain, to come clean. Just admit what you did. Admit you were inappropriate to people ... I implore you. Make this right."

The Cain campaign issued a statement denying Bialek's claims.

"All allegations of harassment against Mr. Cain are completely false," the campaign said in a statement. " Mr. Cain has never harassed anyone."

Bialek is the fourth woman to accuse Cain of sexual harassment when he was head of the NRA, but she's the only accuser who has spoken publicly.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 07, 2011, 02:50:53 PM
She was joined at the press conference by her attorney, celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred, who offered sworn affidavits from two friends to whom Bialek spoke shortly after the alleged encounter.

I had predicted this.

Should I also be correct in assuming Ms. Bialek and the other accusers to follow will all be white?  What would be more repugnant to white male voters than a black man going after white women, right?  Goes right to the core of their racist little Tea Party egos right?

Quote from: Conan71 on November 07, 2011, 03:28:25 PM
I had predicted this.

Should I also be correct in assuming Ms. Bialek and the other accusers to follow will all be white?  What would be more repugnant to white male voters than a black man going after white women, right?  Goes right to the core of their racist little Tea Party egos right?

Quote from: Conan71 on November 07, 2011, 03:28:25 PM
I had predicted this.

Should I also be correct in assuming Ms. Bialek and the other accusers to follow will all be white?  What would be more repugnant to white male voters than a black man going after white women, right?  Goes right to the core of their racist little Tea Party egos right?

Gloria Allred is hitting the talk show circuit tomorrow with her "client" in tow.  The "boyfriend" at the time and father of her child appears to be West Naze, the EVP of a New York marketing firm.  You can bet he will be tapped too for his recollection of the events, and I bet they will be very different from hers.  There are 10 years of court records in Clark County showing an angry battle for child support from him that starts in 1999 with both sides filing paternity suits, and finally ends in an installment agreement in 2009.

Quote from: Gaspar on November 07, 2011, 03:38:29 PM
Gloria Allred is hitting the talk show circuit tomorrow with her "client" in tow.  The "boyfriend" at the time and father of her child appears to be West Naze, the EVP of a New York marketing firm.  You can bet he will be tapped too for his recollection of the events, and I bet they will be very different from hers.  There are 10 years of court records in Clark County showing a viscous battle for child support from him that starts in 1999 with both sides filing paternity suits, and finally ends in an installment agreement in 2009.

Sounds like they had an "installment" agreement long before 2009.  

Even if she was not an employee at the time of the alleged groping (and therefore did not report this as sexual harassment), what she describes could have easily been reported as a sexual assault to the police.  If she was that horrified and had really been molested, why not call the po-po?

Sorry folks, lawyering up with Gloria doesn't lend much credibility.

Quote from: Gaspar on November 07, 2011, 03:38:29 PM
Gloria Allred is hitting the talk show circuit tomorrow with her "client" in tow.  The "boyfriend" at the time and father of her child appears to be West Naze, the EVP of a New York marketing firm.  You can bet he will be tapped too for his recollection of the events, and I bet they will be very different from hers.  There are 10 years of court records in Clark County showing an angry battle for child support from him that starts in 1999 with both sides filing paternity suits, and finally ends in an installment agreement in 2009.

Such a big ball of meaningless blather . . . without a link to support it. 

Quote from: we vs us on November 07, 2011, 03:43:28 PM
Such a big ball of meaningless blather . . . without a link to support it. 

Don't be such an angry person.

https://w3.courtlink.lexisnexis.com/cookcounty/FindDock.asp?NCase=&SearchType=2&Database=4&case_no=&Year=&div=&caseno=&PLtype=1&sname=Naze&CDate=

Quote from: Gaspar on November 07, 2011, 03:46:16 PM
Don't be such an angry person.

https://w3.courtlink.lexisnexis.com/cookcounty/FindDock.asp?NCase=&SearchType=2&Database=4&case_no=&Year=&div=&caseno=&PLtype=1&sname=Naze&CDate=

Not angry at all, just want you to support what you say some of the more outlandish claims. 

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-A6FmtE77XsM/TaB9_bqVBVI/AAAAAAAAAKI/2GXX5HKoD2w/s1600/Mitt-Romney-opposition_13.jpg)


"BOOOOOOONNNNNNGGGGG"

"Gong Show baby, one down and two to go."

Again, there goes that ole "high tech lynching" alibi. Ain't gonna work.

So, are the Teabaggers/GOP that tried to raise Cain looking out for their own self interests or America's? Cain't, what a spazz to fall into that ole white kettle, full of white lies and white magic of control. This guy was never a contender but actually led The Party even though he was never qualified from the git go.

Let's vilify Allred! She's the newest victim?

Quote from: Gaspar on November 07, 2011, 03:38:29 PM
Gloria Allred is hitting the talk show circuit tomorrow with her "client" in tow.  

Wow!  What a surprise.

Well, maybe not.

IMO, Cain's inability to control his temper and maintain poise may end up costing him more than the harrassment claims.  I wouldn't have voted for the guy anyway, but after I heard the uze-becky-becky-beck-stany-stany-stan comment, I began to miss George Bush.  It was like having a sex dream about a homocidal-psychopath ex-girlfreind with a nervous texas laugh: you wake up screaming.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 07, 2011, 03:41:21 PM
If she was that horrified and had really been molested, why not call the po-po?

You are aware that most sexual assaults are never reported, right? The main reasons being the victim's feelings of shame and the knowledge that even if the victim comes forward, they aren't terribly likely to win a conviction. Then you get the troglodytes claiming the victim made it up, was asking for it, and all that other BS. As a society, we treat victims of sexual assault and rape pretty damn poorly. It's no wonder most of the time the victim doesn't even contact police.

Nate, your condescension is un-needed.  Everyone realizes sexual assault does go un-reported.  Her motives to come out now are flimsy at best: "I want to put a face on this for the faceless who can't come forward."  B.S.

She's on CBS right now. At her presser yesterday, she read the entire account from a prepared statement.  Sorry, I'd put a lot more stock in her story if she had clear enough recollection of it to recite it from memory, not a prepared statement drafted by Gloria Alred. 

Is it possible that this could have happened?  Sure, I won't discount that possibility.

Think of the ulterior motives someone might come out for:  Money, narcissism, fame, old grudge because she was fired from NRA.  Yes, I'm aware she's a registered Republican, yet one more thing which makes me skeptical is she thought that was a relevant point to trot out up front make her sound more believable.

There is a lot of quick cash in being a tabloid star.  The whole direction she went with this is highly suspect.  Why did everyone wait until he became a front-runner?

There go ahead and flame me for dirtying up the victim.  This all stinks to high heaven.

Quote from: jacobi on November 07, 2011, 11:06:57 PM
It was like having a sex dream about a homocidal-psychopath ex-girlfreind with a nervous texas laugh: you wake up screaming.

Not every time.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 08, 2011, 08:24:01 AM

Think of the ulterior motives someone might come out for:  Money, narcissism, fame, old grudge because she was fired from NRA.  Yes, I'm aware she's a registered Republican, yet one more thing which makes me skeptical is she thought that was a relevant point to trot out up front make her sound more believable.

And then think of the legitimate reasons someone might come out for:  he might've actually done what she said he did.  And what 3 other women said he did.

Quote from: we vs us on November 08, 2011, 09:05:17 AM
And then think of the legitimate reasons someone might come out for:  he might've actually done what she said he did.  And what 3 other women said he did.

And what two women were given settlements of 35k and 45k for.

Quote from: swake on November 08, 2011, 09:20:26 AM
And what two women were given settlements of 35k and 45k for.

Possibly cheaper than going to court and winning.  Cain probably wasn't thinking of running for President then. I wasn't there so I really don't know any more than the rest of you.

Quote from: Red Arrow on November 08, 2011, 09:31:15 AM
Possibly cheaper than going to court and winning.  Cain probably wasn't thinking of running for President then. I wasn't there so I really don't know any more than the rest of you.

This is very common so you can't assume guilt because somebody is accused and settles... However, the groping is starting to pile up.

Quote from: CharlieSheen on November 08, 2011, 09:35:08 AM
This is very common so you can't assume guilt because somebody is accused and settles... However, the groping is starting to pile up.

This.

(http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/11/08/marguliescain_custom.jpg?t=1320759694&s=4)

Even without this he had me at foreign policy .

Another accuser outed.

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

I find it amusing that he is having his presser in Scottsdale with it's notiriety for sexual escapades, Jenna Jamison, The Pink Taco bar and grill, Barkley arrested for DUI while trying to pick up a hooker...........

Per CBS tweet:

QuoteHerman Cain says he would agree to a lie detector test -- if there were good reason to do so.

Settled

Quote from: dbacks fan on November 08, 2011, 02:50:16 PM
I find it amusing that he is having his presser in Scottsdale with it's notiriety for sexual escapades, Jenna Jamison, The Pink Taco bar and grill, Barkley arrested for DUI while trying to pick up a hooker...........

I never knew of this notoriety. dbacks, care to confess?  ;D

(http://p.twimg.com/Adsz3D0CEAAc7rp.jpg)

He's going to come at this thing head-on.  He's hitting Kemmel tonight and bringing Smoky along for the ride.

Quote from: Gaspar on November 08, 2011, 04:26:37 PM

He's going to come at this thing head-on.  He's hitting Kemmel tonight and bringing Smoky along for the ride.

He was on last night.

http://abc.go.com/shows/jimmy-kimmel-live/episode-guide?season=nov-2011 (http://abc.go.com/shows/jimmy-kimmel-live/episode-guide?season=nov-2011)

The picture reminds me of the infomercial for the Magic Bullet blender where they have all the people sitting around in the kitchen and the lady whackjob who has the cigarette hanging out of her mouth. 

You can tell they really don't expect anyone to take them seriously, and yet, the Magic KoolAid drinkers amongst us, unaccountably, do.

Quote from: guido911 on November 08, 2011, 04:24:45 PM
I never knew of this notoriety. dbacks, care to confess?  ;D

Me? Confess? Never..........

I am now offering odds against Herman Cain being the nominee. I will give out six to one odds against.

If Herman Cain comes out of the republican convention as the nominee, I will pay all who accept this wager six bottles of Marshall's beer. When Herman Cain drops out of the race, you will lose one bottle of Marshall's beer to me.

This offer good for 48 hours from now.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 08, 2011, 06:19:47 PM
I am now offering odds against Herman Cain being the nominee. I will give out six to one odds against.

If Herman Cain comes out of the republican convention as the nominee, I will pay all who accept this wager six bottles of Marshall's beer. When Herman Cain drops out of the race, you will lose one bottle of Marshall's beer to me.

This offer good for 48 hours from now.

Have you already bought the 6-pack?  Would the beer I "lose" come from that same 6-pack?

(You can probably guess I'm not much of a gambler.  :D)

The Teahadist/GOP Cain wreck.....

You really think this guy is not a token member of the GOP contenders?

No. I will buy the beer the day he is the nominee. That would be August 30th, 2012.

No need to wait for the ole smoking pubic hair.... :D

Cain's not on the right side of this issue.....  ;)

I really was hoping he'd get the nomination....him or Ricky. Now, you get RomneyCare.

This is not Presidential material...at least POTUS Obama came forward with a speech on race when right wing nuttery attacked him for his Church and his skills as a neighborhood organizer. Cain pushes out his attorney during a crisis. You'd think the GOP/Teabaggers would have paraded out Condi instead of this Uncle Tom but she must not be Koched up enough....

Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 08, 2011, 07:21:06 PM
No. I will buy the beer the day he is the nominee. That would be August 30th, 2012.

You're no fun.

:D

Quote from: Teatownclown on November 08, 2011, 07:33:25 PM
.at least POTUS Obama came forward with a speech on race when right wing nuttery attacked him for his Church and his skills as a neighborhood organizer.

Are you saying Cain should have immediately played the race card?

Quote from: Red Arrow on November 08, 2011, 07:37:45 PM
Are you saying Cain should have immediately played the race card?

Disingenuous comment, RA. The race card was laid down by the GOP....candidate Obama merely took a brave way through it.

Are you defending Cain't?

Quote from: Teatownclown on November 08, 2011, 07:43:10 PM
Disingenuous comment, RA. The race card was laid down by the GOP....candidate Obama merely took a brave way through it.

Are you defending Cain't?

I don't care at this point who laid down the card on Obama.  It was wrong then and wrong now.  It sounded like you are saying Cain should use it now.  Perhaps I misread you.

I don't know whether Cain did what he is accused of or not.  I am always suspicious of anything Gloria Allred is involved with.  Why does Cain, or anyone, have to prove their innocence rather than the accusers proving him guilty? 

Quote from: Teatownclown on November 08, 2011, 07:33:25 PM
No need to wait for the ole smoking pubic hair.... :D

Cain's not on the right side of this issue.....  ;)

I really was hoping he'd get the nomination....him or Ricky. Now, you get RomneyCare.

This is not Presidential material...at least POTUS Obama came forward with a speech on race when right wing nuttery attacked him for his Church and his skills as a neighborhood organizer. Cain pushes out his attorney during a crisis. You'd think the GOP/Teabaggers would have paraded out Condi instead of this Uncle Tom but she must not be Koched up enough....

Uncle Tom?  Ease up on the racism, clown.  

Anyone else notice the track this has taken?  All the accusers we know of now are white.  What's more repugnant to the stereotypical bigoted male conservative?  Interracial relations and black men with great sexual prowess.  This is the lowest level of gutter politics.  

Her story gets worse as it goes on.  Who here can remember what they were wearing on a particular night a couple of weeks ago (Okay unless you were in a Tux or wedding dress) much less 14 years ago?  

Interesting coincidence: She lived in the same apartment building as David Axlerod.  For someone who seems to have a passive interest in politics, why would she have a clue who he was?  

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/08/cain_accuser_lives_in_same_building_as_david_axelrod.html

She's filed bankruptcy twice, she's got two tax liens filed on her property, she was sued for paternity(come on what woman is ever sued for paternity?) The only two people she ever told until now were two men.  Most women would not have confided in a male, but rather a female if such a thing had happened.

Google your own links if you doubt the veracity of those statements, they do exist.

This is an easy kill for whomever started the accusations here.  None of the claims can be corroborated, but they can count on the media as willing accomplices to focus on even the most slightly salacious detail and blow it out of proportion.  An MSNBC commentator is already saying Cain should have to register as a sex offender...

If you are so sure that these repeated scandals won't knock Cain out of the race, take my bet.

Trash the women all you want. When there is this many coming forward, it is hard for most of us to believe his story of innocence.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 08, 2011, 11:25:43 PM
Uncle Tom?  Ease up on the racism, clown.  

Anyone else notice the track this has taken?  All the accusers we know of now are white.  What's more repugnant to the stereotypical bigoted male conservative?  Interracial relations and black men with great sexual prowess.  This is the lowest level of gutter politics.  

Her story gets worse as it goes on.  Who here can remember what they were wearing on a particular night a couple of weeks ago (Okay unless you were in a Tux or wedding dress) much less 14 years ago?  

Interesting coincidence: She lived in the same apartment building as David Axlerod.  For someone who seems to have a passive interest in politics, why would she have a clue who he was?  

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/08/cain_accuser_lives_in_same_building_as_david_axelrod.html

She's filed bankruptcy twice, she's got two tax liens filed on her property, she was sued for paternity(come on what woman is ever sued for paternity?) The only two people she ever told until now were two men.  Most women would not have confided in a male, but rather a female if such a thing had happened.

Google your own links if you doubt the veracity of those statements, they do exist.

This is an easy kill for whomever started the accusations here.  None of the claims can be corroborated, but they can count on the media as willing accomplices to focus on even the most slightly salacious detail and blow it out of proportion.  An MSNBC commentator is already saying Cain should have to register as a sex offender...

And now the other accuser that has come public has has a track record of filing discrimination/harassment cases against her previous employers. The "harassment card" is the only card that opponents can use against him, so I assume they will continue to capitalize on that.  I'm not completely convinced that this is just a Democrat conspiracy, but it does seem to be the standard course of action when a black candidate for office falls outside of Democrat control.  As Cain himself said back in October, he is prepared for attacks on his character because he "left the Democrat plantation long ago."

Through his flat denial and rejection of the accusations he has left himself open for a broadside, this is very brave and indicative of someone who is truly innocent.  One single fracture in his story will end his campaign, but on the other hand, inconsistencies in the tales of his accusers will make him stronger.

I love the new talking points about "trashing women" coming from the Dem scripts.  I seem to remember quite a machine for "trashing women" when President Clinton was in office.  In fact, it was beyond trashing.  :D

Conan,

It's about integrity.

You got it?

Clown

Quote from: Teatownclown on November 09, 2011, 07:59:49 AM
It's about integrity.
Clown

Think there are any women in your past that could be convinced they need to remember any indiscretions on your part?

I can well imagine someone could find at least one or two.

Quote from: Red Arrow on November 09, 2011, 08:13:25 AM
Think there are any women in your past that could be convinced they need to remember any indiscretions on your part?

I can well imagine someone could find at least one or two.

It would be not be unimaginable to find moral turpitude for vindictive or manipulative purposes in order to rectify a sociopolitical or psychological personal disorder issue.

And then again I am not running for public office.

And there would be many women in my past who could come forward to say I refused their offers on the grounds that I was in a committed relationship.

Quote from: Teatownclown on November 09, 2011, 08:20:39 AM
And there would be many women in my past who could come forward to say I refused their offers on the grounds that I was in a committed relationship.

Nobody would care about that.

Quote from: Red Arrow on November 09, 2011, 08:23:36 AM
Nobody would care about that.

You really don't know integrity.... of course, it's something you either have or don't. There's no in between. Which is why Cain't ain't....

Will Rogers was right on with his comment that he was not a member of any organized political party - he was a Democrat.

There was an amazing opportunity squandered here just due to the "herding cats" approach to organizing.  The only thing they had to do to absolutely guarantee that Obama is re-elected was to keep going after all the other 'strawmen' and women on the Republican side and leave Cain alone.  Maybe even support him behind the scenes...

Then when he is nominated as the candidate, bring up everything.  (Same applies with Bachman or Perry, too).

But the kids in the sandbox just can't see ahead that far....

Quote from: Teatownclown on November 09, 2011, 08:20:39 AM
It would be not be unimaginable to find moral turpitude for vindictive or manipulative purposes in order to rectify a sociopolitical or psychological personal disorder issue.

And then again I am not running for public office.

And there would be many women in my past who could come forward to say I refused their offers on the grounds that I was in a committed relationship.

"We then left the restaurant in his clown car.  It was crowded in there.  He offered me a flower, and when I reluctantly accepted, it squirted me in the face.  He then pulled my head close and asked me to honk his big red nose."

Quote from: Gaspar on November 09, 2011, 09:26:36 AM
"We then left the restaurant in his clown car.  It was crowded in there.  He offered me a flower, and when I reluctantly accepted, it squirted me in the face.  He then pulled my head close and asked me to honk his big red nose."

You were there!  You witnessed it all!!  Why don't you do the right thing and come forward to testify!!

Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 09, 2011, 07:28:54 AM
If you are so sure that these repeated scandals won't knock Cain out of the race, take my bet.

Trash the women all you want. When there is this many coming forward, it is hard for most of us to believe his story of innocence.

I'll take your bet.

What did you think about the trashing of the revolving door of Clinton accusers?  Clinton's behavior was tantamount to rape with multiple women and there was physical evidence to support some of the allegations. (i.e. Paula Jones could identify his schwantz).

All we know about Cain is unsubstantiated and uncorroborated claims of inappropriate comments and claims of a physical encounter for which Cain says he would take a lie detector test.  Once Ms. Bialek is no longer useful to whomever engineered this and she's fully discredited, she will fade off into obscurity and I suspect we will hear she was found with a bottle of sleeping pills near her body.

Mr. Cain has the same right to be protected from attacks on his character as these women do.

I've never contributed to a presidential campaign before, but I'm mighty darn close to sending Cain a check.  This sort of trashing of a black conservative male was predictable.  And yes, to be perfectly honest, had this come up in the exact same circumstances on a black Democrat candidate, I'd view it with the same skeptical eye I have this story.  Until someone can come up with corroborating evidence or physical evidence, I'm going to continue to believe the settlements were not unlike what was and has gone on in corporate America since harassment laws were ramped up in the mid '90's.  The bar is so low for proof, it's far easier to settle as soon as someone squeals.  It's easy money for the accuser.  I do appreciate those laws are in place for legit harassment, but they are as abused as personal injury tort.

I'm pretty sure we would've heard very little about Cain by now if it weren't for these accusations.

His non-existing foreign policy and his less than amazing grasp of the language would've knocked him out of front runner status.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 09, 2011, 09:48:20 AM
I'll take your bet.

What did you think about the trashing of the revolving door of Clinton accusers? 

Why does it matter what Clinton did? Is that the republican talking point of the day. Cain might be guilty, but Clinton did it back in the 90s also?

If Cain was a democrat, you would not defend him.

Quote from: Townsend on November 09, 2011, 09:50:33 AM
I'm pretty sure we would've heard very little about Cain by now if it weren't for these accusations.

. . .his less than amazing grasp of the language. . .

Of what language?

Quote from: Gaspar on November 09, 2011, 10:00:48 AM
Of what language?

DIvI' Hol

Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 09, 2011, 09:59:50 AM
Why does it matter what Clinton did? Is that the republican talking point of the day. Cain might be guilty, but Clinton did it back in the 90s also?

If Cain was a democrat, you would not defend him.

Why does it matter?  I simply want to know if you brushed off the claims against Clinton with the same fervor you've assumed Cain's guilt because he's a Republican. 

I most certainly would defend Cain if he were a Democrat.  What's going on here is dirty tricks to bring a man down who has some dynamic ideas on how to move the country forward.  I'm about the truth, not partisan hackery.  Keep in mind, I would have gladly voted for Bill Richardson in the '08 election had he been the nominee.

Let's say the allegations are true.  Does that make him un-fit to lead if he's got great leadership qualities otherwise?  Every presidential candidate and previous president has peccadilloes in their past of one sort or another.  You'd probably be shocked if you knew how many companies have paid out "go away" money in spurious SH claims since the mid 1990's.  It's a common complaint leveled on supervisors and corporate leaders.  Some legit, the majority are blown out of proportion, but they settle anyhow.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 09, 2011, 10:19:18 AM
What's going on here is dirty tricks to bring a man down who has some dynamic ideas on how to move the country forward.  

Really??  You truly think 9-9-9 is a dynamic idea to move the country forward???

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 09, 2011, 10:24:02 AM

Really??  You truly think 9-9-9 is a dynamic idea to move the country forward???

Any reform to simplify the tax code and move the burden towards a use based system will move the country forward.

The alternative is the continuous accumulation of regulation and layers of taxation.

So, yes.

Quote from: Gaspar on November 09, 2011, 10:27:56 AM
Any reform to simplify the tax code and move the burden towards a use based system will move the country forward.

The alternative is the continuous accumulation of regulation and layers of taxation.

So, yes.

Wow!


I mean, like... wow!

Quote from: Conan71 on November 09, 2011, 10:19:18 AM
Let's say the allegations are true.  Does that make him un-fit to lead if he's got great leadership qualities otherwise? 

Yes. It shocks me that you don't see it.

Bill Clinton embarassed America because he couldn't keep his pants on. He knew they were after him and he was so weak that he did it anyway. I would have never voted for him again.

If the allegations are true, Herman Cain should get out of the race.

I don't get how anybody thinks the democrats are involved in making Cain look bad. First, democrats are terrible at covert excursions and black ops, and second Cain is the perfect republican candidate to keep Obama in office, its like Kerry vs Bush.

Quote from: carltonplace on November 09, 2011, 01:56:13 PM
First, democrats are terrible at covert excursions and black ops,

Democrats are excellent at covert excursions and black ops.  They hardly ever get caught compared to Republicans.  You will not convince me that Democrats are not participants in those activities at similar levels.

Quote from: Red Arrow on November 09, 2011, 02:15:47 PM
Democrats are excellent at covert excursions and black ops.  They hardly ever get caught compared to Republicans.  You will not convince me that Democrats are not participants in those activities at similar levels.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. #rumsfeld!

At least Clinton's was consentual. If the allegations are found to be true, it doesn't sound consentual and should be treated as such.

Quote from: we vs us on November 09, 2011, 02:31:58 PM
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. #rumsfeld!

And look what happened to him, eventually.

I don't really see that quote as saying that the absence of evidence is the not the evidence of something having happened, which is what I would have expected from you.

In either case, it's generally easier to prove something did happen that to prove it didn't.

Quote from: Red Arrow on November 09, 2011, 02:15:47 PM
Democrats are excellent at covert excursions and black ops.  They hardly ever get caught compared to Republicans.  You will not convince me that Democrats are not participants in those activities at similar levels.

Did you give Gaspar your password or something?

Quote from: nathanm on November 09, 2011, 03:35:28 PM
Did you give Gaspar your password or something?

Nope.  Something I can believe without his help.

Quote from: Red Arrow on November 09, 2011, 03:46:03 PM
Nope.  Something I can believe without his help.

I didn't realize you were also suffering from delusions. I'm sorry for your loss. I hope you get better soon!

Quote from: nathanm on November 09, 2011, 04:12:02 PM
I didn't realize you were also suffering from delusions. I'm sorry for your loss. I hope you get better soon!

I am sorry to read about your loss of sight.  I hope you have a braille monitor.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 09, 2011, 11:54:42 AM
Yes. It shocks me that you don't see it.

Bill Clinton embarassed America because he couldn't keep his pants on. He knew they were after him and he was so weak that he did it anyway. I would have never voted for him again.

If the allegations are true, Herman Cain should get out of the race.

Be honest.  Did you vote for Clinton in '92 and '96?  This was known about him, without doubt, prior to both elections.  Gennifer Flowers had far more evidence than any of these women did, prior to the '92 election, yet Clinton was deemed suitable for the job.

What evidence do you possess which unequivocally states the allegations on Cain are true other than a couple of accusers with questionable motives and ZERO corroborating evidence.

Quote from: dbacks fan on November 09, 2011, 02:42:57 PM
At least Clinton's was consentual. If the allegations are found to be true, it doesn't sound consentual and should be treated as such.

Paula Jones or Kathleen Wiley ring a bell? I believe there were one or two others as well.  #rapedbyclinton

Quote from: carltonplace on November 09, 2011, 01:56:13 PM
I don't get how anybody thinks the democrats are involved in making Cain look bad. First, democrats are terrible at covert excursions and black ops, and second Cain is the perfect republican candidate to keep Obama in office, its like Kerry vs Bush.

You are most certainly old enough to remember Watergate.  #GOPspookingexpeditionsgonebad

Why quit as long as people are still sending him cash?
He's probably doing just what Sarah Palin did and just separating stupid people from their money.

CoCo,

What's with your infatuation with Politicians and how they have kinky issues? :D

Cain't qualify... has something to do with the fact he's just not likable?

BTW, I voted both times for Bill. His overtures to "those women" were obviously accepted by those women.

Maybe Bill's innate abilities to "understand" people was much better than Cain'ts attempts at prey.

Ole black guy got rejected.

And Patric, those stupids are the Koch Brothers.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 09, 2011, 10:20:23 PM

What evidence do you possess which unequivocally states the allegations on Cain are true other than a couple of accusers with questionable motives and ZERO corroborating evidence.

Anyone? Bueller, Bueller, Bueller?

Not a chance that this is the end of Cain. He may flame out at some point, but not due to these allegations. So by all means jump on the bash Cain wagon, its fun to watch.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 09, 2011, 10:20:23 PM
Be honest.  Did you vote for Clinton in '92 and '96?  This was known about him, without doubt, prior to both elections.  Gennifer Flowers had far more evidence than any of these women did, prior to the '92 election, yet Clinton was deemed suitable for the job.

What evidence do you possess which unequivocally states the allegations on Cain are true other than a couple of accusers with questionable motives and ZERO corroborating evidence.

Clinton had some great help from the highway patrol too!
But let's not make this about Clinton, that's as bad as making President Obama's foolishness about Bush.

We know there's a double standard, so MOVE ON!

Interesting news piece this morning.
http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/16002149/investigator-herman-cain-innocent-of-sexual-advances?clienttype=printable

Quote from: Gaspar on November 10, 2011, 07:30:39 AM
Interesting news piece this morning.
http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/16002149/investigator-herman-cain-innocent-of-sexual-advances?clienttype=printable

Because we all know software and polygraphs are infallible.   ::)

Quote from: Hoss on November 10, 2011, 08:15:02 AM
Because we all know software and polygraphs are infallible.   ::)

That is true, they only substantiate probability.  Poligraph is typically scored with a +or- 10%, and the new vocal tests claim +or- 5%.

So you are correct there is a 5% chance she may be telling the truth, and a 5% chance he may be lying. 

I would like to see an actual clinical analysis too.

Quote from: Teatownclown on November 09, 2011, 11:32:46 PM
CoCo,

What's with your infatuation with Politicians and how they have kinky issues? :D

Cain't qualify... has something to do with the fact he's just not likable?

BTW, I voted both times for Bill. His overtures to "those women" were obviously accepted by those women.

Maybe Bill's innate abilities to "understand" people was much better than Cain'ts attempts at prey.

Ole black guy got rejected.

And Patric, those stupids are the Koch Brothers.

Clown, except for Reagan, we always nominate less than charismatic candidates.

There was pretty good evidence by the '96 election that Clinton liked less than consensual sex.  Must have been the smell of pepper spray he was attracted to.

Quote from: Gaspar on November 10, 2011, 08:32:30 AM
That is true, they only substantiate probability.  Poligraph is typically scored with a +or- 10%, and the new vocal tests claim +or- 5%.

So you are correct there is a 5% chance she may be telling the truth, and a 5% chance he may be lying. 

I would like to see an actual clinical analysis too.

And aside from the fact it will be uncovered this afternoon that the Cain campaign paid for this analysis ;)

Looks like a good day to donate to the Hermanator, I'm emptying out my piggy bank.  How much are you sending in Gaspar?

Quote from: Gaspar on November 10, 2011, 07:30:39 AM
Interesting news piece this morning.
http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/16002149/investigator-herman-cain-innocent-of-sexual-advances?clienttype=printable

Yeah....riiigggghhhhhtttttt!!!!!
Just like this little jewel!

http://www.museumofquackery.com/devices/shoexray.htm

And the movie of it in use.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbMN6jueU1A

A TV reporter from his home town talks to another guy who says he put audio tape in a machine and his voice proves he is innocent. You some kinda gullible.

This just in. I cut and pasted gaspar's comments in a word document and my printer pushed it out on toilet paper. That proves you are ful sh!t.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2011, 08:35:07 AM
Clown, except for Reagan, we always nominate less than charismatic candidates.

There was pretty good evidence by the '96 election that Clinton liked less than consensual sex.  Must have been the smell of pepper spray he was attracted to.

Charisma is exactly what got Clinton elected.  Twice.  And how he somehow miraculously stays wildly popular.  I don't get it, but somehow people still really like him.  I guess it is the internal comparison people make to him versus Bush and/or Obama.


Any less than consensual regarding Billy Bob was the parties involved trying to protect their reputations from being thought of as 'swingers', wife swappers, group activities.  

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 10, 2011, 09:02:59 AM
Charisma is exactly what got Clinton elected.  Twice.  And how he somehow miraculously stays wildly popular.  I don't get it, but somehow people still really like him.  I guess it is the internal comparison people make to him versus Bush and/or Obama.


Any less than consensual regarding Billy Bob was the parties involved trying to protect their reputations from being thought of as 'swingers', wife swappers, group activities.  

Tell that to Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, or Kathleen Willey.  I assume you were there to be able to positively disparage their accounts?

Juanita Broaddrick signed a sworn affidavit years later admitting is was all made up.

The independent council convened by republicans determined that Kathleen Willey had lied to them and the White House revealed fifteen letters and twelve phone calls she made to Clinton after the incident where he kissed her.

Paula Jones kept quiet about her claims until 1994 after Bill Clinton had already been elected.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2011, 09:11:39 AM
Tell that to Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, or Kathleen Willey.  I assume you were there to be able to positively disparage their accounts?

Nope.  I don't move in those circles myself.


Interesting how Broaddrick and Willey started out saying nothing happened.  Broaddrick in sworn testimony to the court - and Willey even wrote friendly letters showing willingness to carry on further with Billy Bob after initial contact - 15 letters and 12 phone calls.  

And how Paula Jones testimony is directly contradicted by a sworn officer of the law - highway patrolman.  After David Brock (conservative gunslinger in the 90's) told the story about how someone named "Paula" was trying to get close to Clinton to be his girlfriend.

And when you look at the time frame - Paula Jones was filing suit on events in the time frame 1991 - May, 1994.  The court (in 1997) ordered Clinton to divulge any propositions he may have made to women working for State or Federal govt.  Seems like that would/should be limited to the time frame of interest, but even though the judge originally defined the order as the time frame of interest, it was somehow expanded to include events that happened over two years after all the other stuff went on.  Kind of a moving target, huh?

Seems like the courts were kind of weird in this case, too.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2011, 08:40:36 AM
And aside from the fact it will be uncovered this afternoon that the Cain campaign paid for this analysis ;)

Looks like a good day to donate to the Hermanator, I'm emptying out my piggy bank.  How much are you sending in Gaspar?

Sending $200.

Within the next two weeks, Stiffler's mom will no longer be an issue for Cain.  She is now beginning to waver on whether she might be interested in a book deal or other offer for money. 

I give her the benefit of the doubt, however I do not find her credible.

Quote from: Gaspar on November 10, 2011, 10:51:17 AM
Within the next two weeks, Stiffler's mom will no longer be an issue for Cain.   

I predict Cain will be of little consequence to us as well.

Quote from: Townsend on November 10, 2011, 10:52:48 AM
I predict Cain will be of little consequence to us as well.

I agree.  He'll likely move to Uz-beki-beki-stani-stani-stan to escape the criticism...

If it weren't still relatively early, I would suspect that Cain gets the nod. Tea Partyists just rally around their deities when they are criticized and/or turn out to be corrupt. I can't see them getting behind Romney. This primary will come down to whomever the Tea Partyists think give them the best chance against the Republican establishment and Romney, who is clearly the old-guard Republican favorite.

Personally, I'd most like to see Ron Paul get the nomination. It'll never happen, though. He's too sane. I don't agree with many of his policy prescriptions, but he is at least sincere, unlike the rest of the Republican field that hasn't dropped out. He has the country's best interest in mind, not just his party's. Much like the real Obama. (as opposed to the fabricated Obama of Tea Partyist nightmares)

Quote from: nathanm on November 10, 2011, 11:47:03 AM
Liberals just rally around their deities when they are criticized and/or turn out to be corrupt.

FIFY.

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3305/3619263659_ea96744f3e.jpg)

Quote from: nathanm on November 10, 2011, 11:47:03 AM
. . .Much like the real Obama.

Bwahahaha!  The last 3 years performance has been more than adequate to illustrate "the real Obama."

Standing ovation!

That's just not true. Aside from Clinton's..indiscretions..Democrats who have turned out to have stepped out on their wives or have been involved in corruption almost always either resign or get voted out. Republicans, on the other hand, do not. Reagan, Gingrich, Bush II, and Palin all escaped with little to nothing in the way of repercussions. I guess there was that one jackass in San Diego some years back who got booted out, but he was found to have large sums of cash hidden away in his house.

It's funny how the conventional narrative so often flies in the face of facts. The Democrats aren't perfect. I have strong disagreements with the party line, but there is little equivalence between them and the incredibly corrupt Republican establishment, which unfortunately also includes the Tea Partyists. I had hoped that they would get behind people who weren't part of that, but they have turned out to be primarily interested in electing Republicans at any cost, including their own stated values.

BTW, when I said "the real Obama," I was talking about his actual record, not the right wing caricature which Gaspar furiously frottages himself against.

Quote from: nathanm on November 10, 2011, 12:34:59 PM
It's funny how the conventional narrative so often flies in the face of facts.

Fox is mostly opinion news.  (non-factual).  Many of the GOP have watched Fox for a very long time.  (used to being told non-factual things as fact)  They're now used to accepting non-facts.


When the minions ask their GOP leaders (from media and politics) "why'd you do that?  We've seen the pictures/video and heard you do it on audio.  There's proof."
The GOP leaders say "I didn't do that.  It's the Liberal media."
Minions: "Oh, OK."

So on and so forth.

Quote from: nathanm on November 10, 2011, 12:34:59 PM
That's just not true. Aside from Clinton's..indiscretions..Democrats who have turned out to have stepped out on their wives or have been involved in corruption almost always either resign or get voted out. Republicans, on the other hand, do not. Reagan, Gingrich, Bush II, and Palin all escaped with little to nothing in the way of repercussions. I guess there was that one jackass in San Diego some years back who got booted out, but he was found to have large sums of cash hidden away in his house.

It's funny how the conventional narrative so often flies in the face of facts. The Democrats aren't perfect. I have strong disagreements with the party line, but there is little equivalence between them and the incredibly corrupt Republican establishment, which unfortunately also includes the Tea Partyists. I had hoped that they would get behind people who weren't part of that, but they have turned out to be primarily interested in electing Republicans at any cost, including their own stated values.

BTW, when I said "the real Obama," I was talking about his actual record, not the right wing caricature which Gaspar furiously frottages himself against.

So your line is that Democrats are not corrupt or less corrupt than Republicans?  That's rich...

How about the influence peddling and crony capitalism scandal the Obama administration is currently embroiled in for starters?

Then we can segue into Dodd- (D-Countrywide), Biden (D-MBNA) Frank (D-Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac) and let's not forget the nice government work that interests owned by members of the Pelosi and Boxer clans get.

Pull your head out Nate.  If you really believe the quagmire in Washington is the result soley of corrupt GOP interests rather than a completely broken and corrupt system, I've got some really nice property for sale in a low-lying area.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2011, 12:42:10 PM

How about the influence peddling and crony capitalism scandal the Obama administration is currently embroiled in for starters?

Then we can segue into Dodd- (D-Countrywide), Biden (D-MBNA) Frank (D-Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac) and let's not forget the nice government work that interests owned by members of the Pelosi and Boxer clans get.

Conservative Media!!!

Quote from: Townsend on November 10, 2011, 12:41:37 PM
Fox MSNBC is mostly opinion news.  (non-factual).  Many of the GOP liberal persuasion have watched Fox MSNBC for a very long time.  (used to being told non-factual things as fact)  They're now used to accepting non-facts.


When the minions ask their GOP Democrat leaders (from media and politics) "why'd you do that?  We've seen the pictures/video and heard you do it on audio.  There's proof."
The GOP Democrat leaders say "I didn't do that.  It's the Liberal media Fox, Murdoch, or the Koch Brothers."
Minions: "Oh, OK."

So on and so forth.

Can at least we agree that the less-informed amongst us tend to form their opinions from opinion TV rather than reaching for facts?

Ron Paul sane? In my book he's up there with crazy uncle Glenn and his half brother Rush followed by the nephews from Faux News.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2011, 12:44:28 PM
Can at least we agree that the less-informed amongst us tend to form their opinions from opinion TV rather than reaching for facts?

Yes.

You notice how much better conservative opinion media seems to do over liberal opinion media though?


I was working on a copywrite btw...

Since we are comparing past administrations and their level of corruption...read these about the Reagan years...

Ronald Reagan's Cabinet

"By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."

* Lyn Nofziger--Convicted on charges of illegal lobbying of White House in Wedtech scandal.

* Michael Deaver received three years' probation and was fined one hundred thousand dollars after being convicted for lying to a congressional subcommittee and a federal grand jury about his lobbying activities after leaving the White House. . .

* E. Bob Wallach, close friend and law classmate of Atty General Edwin Meese, was sentenced to six years in prison and fined $250,000 in connection with the Wedtech influence-peddling scandal.

Then there was:.
* James Watt, Reagan's Secretary of the Interior was indicted on 41 felony counts for using connections at the Department of Housing and Urban Development to help his private clients seek federal funds for housing projects in Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Watt conceded that he had received $500,000 from clients who were granted very favorable housing contracts after he had intervened on their behalf. In testifying before a House committee Watt said: "That's what they offered and it sounded like a lot of money to me, and we settled on it." Watt was eventually sentenced to five years in prison and 500 hours of community service.
Two types of problems typified the ethical misconduct cases of the Reagan years, and both had heavy consequences to citizens everywhere. One stemmed from ideology and deregulatory impulses run amok; the other, from classic corruption on a grand scale.
* The Pentagon procurement scandal, which resulted from the Republicans' enormous infusion of money too quickly into the Defense Department after the lean Carter years . . .

* Massive fraud and mismanagement in the Department of Housing and Urban Development throughout Reagan's eight years. These were finally documented in congressional hearings in spring 1989, after Reagan left office. Cost the taxpayers billions of dollars in losses. What made this scandal most shameful was that Reagan's' friends and fixers profited at the expense of the poor, the very people HUD and the federal government were pledged to assist through low-income housing. . .

* The Iran-Contra scandal. In June, 1984, at a National Security Council meeting, CIA Director Casey urged President Reagan to seek third-party aid for the Nicaraguan contras. Secretary of State Schultz warned that it would be an "impeachable offense" if the U.S. government acted as conduit for such secret funding. But that didn't stop them. That same day, Oliver North was seeking third-party aid for the contras. But Reagan, the "teflon President" avoided serious charges or impeachment. . .

* Oliver North--Convicted of falsifying and destroying documents, accepting an illegal gratuity, and aiding and abetting the obstruction of Congress. Conviction overturned on appeal due to legal technicalities. . .

* John Poindexter, Reagan's national security advisor, --guilty of five criminal counts involving conspiracy to mislead Congress, obstructing congressional inquiries, lying to lawmakers, used "high national security" to mask deceit and wrong-doing. . .

* Richard Secord pleaded guilty to a felony charge of lying to Congress over Iran-Contra. . .

* Casper Weinberger was Secretary of Defense during Iran-Contra. In June 1992 he was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of concealing from congressional investigators and prosecutors thousands of pages of his handwritten notes. The personal memoirs taken during high level meetings, detailed events in 1985 and 1986 involving the Iran-Contra affair. Weinberger claimed he was being unfairly prosecuted because he would not provide information incriminating Ronald Reagan. Weinberger was scheduled to go on trial January 5, 1993, where the contents of his notes would have come to light and may have implicated other, unindicted conspirators. While Weinberger was never directly linked to the covert operations phase of the Iran-Contra affair, he is believed to have been involved in the cover-up of the ensuing scandal. According to Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh, Weinberger's notes contain evidence of a conspiracy among the highest ranking Reagan Administration officials to lie to congress and the American public. Some of the notes are believed to have evidence against then Vice-President George Bush who pardoned Weinberger to keep him from going to trial. . .

* Elliott Abrams was appointed by President Reagan in 1985 to head the State Department's Latin American Bureau. He was closely linked with ex-White House aide Lt. Col. Oliver North's covert movement to aid the Contras. Working for North, Abrams coordinated inter-agency support for the contras and helped solicit illegal funding from foreign powers as well as domestic contributors. Abrams agreed to cooperate with Iran-Contra investigators and pled guilty to two charges reduced to misdemeanors. He was sentenced in 1991 to two years probation and 100 hours of community service but was pardoned by President George Bush. . .

* Robert C. McFarlane was appointed Ronald Reagan's National Security Advisor in October 1983 and become well-known as a champion of the MX missile program in his role as White House liaison to congress. In 1984, Mc Farlane initiated the review of U.S. policy towards Iran that led directly to the arms for hostages deal. He also supervised early National Security Council efforts to support the Contras. Shortly after the Iran-Contra scandal was revealed in early 1987, McFarlane took an overdose of the tranquilizer Valium in an attempt to end his life. In his own words: "What really drove me to despair was a sense of having failed the country." McFarlane pled guilty to four misdemeanors and was sentenced to two years probation and 200 hours of community service. He was also fined $20,000. He received a blanket pardon from President George Bush. . .

* Alan D. Fiers was the Chief of the Central Intelligence Agency's Central American Task Force. Fiers pled guilty in 1991 to two counts of withholding information from congress about Oliver North's activities and the diversion of Iran arms sale money to aid the Contras. He was sentenced to one year of probation and 100 hours of community service. Fiers agreed to cooperate with prosecutors in exchange for having his felonies reduced to misdemeanors and his testimony gave a boost to the long standing criminal investigation of Lawrence Walsh, Special Prosecutor. Fiers testified that he and three CIA colleagues knew by mid-1986 that profits from the TOW and HAWK missile sales to Iran were being diverted to the Contras months before it became public knowledge. Alan Fiers received a blanket pardon for his crimes from President Bush. . .

* Clair George was Chief of the CIA's Division of Covert Operations under President Reagan. In August 1992 a hung jury led U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth to declare a mistrial in the case of Clair George who was accused of concealing from Congress his knowledge of the Iran-Contra affair. George had been named by Alan Fiers when Fiers turned state's evidence for Lawrence Walsh's investigation. In a second trial on charges of perjury, false statements and obstruction of justice, George was convicted of lying to two congressional committees in 1986. George faced a maximum five year federal prison sentence and a $20,000 fine for each of the two convictions. Jurors cleared George of five other charges including two counts of lying to a federal grand jury. Those charges would have carried a mandatory 10 months in prison upon conviction. Clair George received a blanket pardon for his crimes from President George Bush. . .

* Duane R. (Dewey) Clarridge was head of the CIA's Western European Division under President Reagan. He was indicted on November 29, 1991 for lying to congress and to the Tower Commission that investigated Iran- Contra. Clarridge was charged with five counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements for covering up his knowledge of a November 25, 1985 shipment of HAWK missiles to Iran. Clarridge was also suspected of diverting to the Contras weapons that were originally intended for the Afghan mujahaddeen guerrillas. Clarridge received a blanket pardon for his crimes on Christmas Eve 1992 from President George Bush. . .

* Environmental Protection Agency's favoritism toward polluters. Assistant administrator unduly influenced by chemical industry lobbyists. Another administrator resigned after pressuring employees to tone down a critical report on a chemical company accused of illegal pollution in Michigan. The deputy chief of federal activities was accused of compiling an interagency "hit" or "enemies" list, like those kept in the Nixon Watergate period, singling out career employees to be hired, fired or promoted according to political beliefs. . .

* Anne Gorscuh Burford resigned amid accusations she politically manipulated the Superfund money. . .

* Rita Lavelle was fired after accusing a senior EPA official of "systematically alienating the business community." She was later indicted, tried and convicted of lying to Congress and served three months of a six-month prison sentence. After an extensive investigation, in August 1984, a House of Representatives subcommittee concluded that top-level EPA appointees by Reagan for three years "violated their public trust by disregarding the public health and the environment, manipulating the Superfund program for political purposes, engaging in unethical conduct and participating in other abuses.".

* Neglected nuclear safety. A critical situation involving nuclear safety had been allowed to develop during the Reagan era. Immense sums, estimated at 200 billion or more, would be required in the 1990s to replace and make safe America's neglected, aging, deteriorating, and dangerous nuclear facilities. . .

* Savings & Loan Bail-out. Hundreds of billions of dollars were needed to bail out savings and loan institutions that either had failed during the deregulation frenzy of the eighties or were in danger of bankruptcy. . .

* Reckless airline deregulation. Deregulation of airline industry took too broad a sweep, endangering public safety.

Additionally:
* Richard Allen, National Security adviser resigned amid controversy over an honorarium he received for arranging an interview with Nancy Reagan. . .

* Richard Beggs, chief administrator at NASA was indicted for defrauding the government while an executive at General Dynamics. . .

* Guy Flake, Deputy Secretary of Commerce, resigned after allegations of a conflict of interest in contract negotiations. . .

* Louis Glutfrida, Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency resigned amid allegations of misuses of government property. . .

* Edwin Gray, Chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank was charged with illegally repaying himself and his wife $26,000 in travel costs. . .

* Max Hugel, CIA chief of covert operations who resigned after allegations of fraudulent financial dealings. . .

* Carlos Campbell, Assistant Secretary of Commerce resigned over charges of awarding federal grants to his personal friends' firms. . .

* Raymond Donovan, Secretary of Labor indicted for defrauding the New York City Transit Authority of $7.4. million.
{ Republicans will point out that Donovan was acquitted. And that really matters in Donovan's case, because he was a Republican. But it didn't matter for Clinton or any of his cabinet, most all of whom were acquitted, because THEY were Democrats!} * John Fedders, chief of enforcement for the Securities and Exchange Commission resigned over charges of beating his wife. . .

* Arthur Hayes, Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration resigned over illegal travel reimbursements. . .

* J. Lynn Helms, chief of the Federal Aviation Administration resigned over a grand jury investigation of illegal business activities. . .

* Marjory Mecklenburg, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Resources resigned over irregularities on her travel vouchers. . .

* Robert Nimmo, head of the Veterans Administration resigned when a report criticized him for improper use of government funds. . .

* J. William Petro, U.S. Attorney fired and fined for tipping off an acquaintance about a forthcoming Grand Jury investigation. . .

* Thomas C. Reed, White House counselor and National Security Council adviser resigned and paid a $427,000 fine for stock market insider trading. . .

* Emanuel Savas, Assistant Secretary of HUD resigned over assigning staff members to work on government time on a book that guilty to expense account fraud and accepting kickbacks on government contracts. . .

* Charles Wick, Director of the U.S. Information Agency investigated for taping conversations with public officials without their approval.

Here's a tat for your tit, RM:

"Clinton Presidency:
The Most Corrupt in American History
On Principle, v4n6
December 1996

by: David N. Mayer


History does repeat itself. On November 5, the American people re-elected Bill Clinton to a second term in the face of allegations of serious abuses of power by the President and members of his administration. Like the allegations about the break-in at the Watergate Hotel that George McGovern unsuccessfully tried to raise during the 1972 election, the allegations about the Clinton adminstration's abuses of power failed to capture the attention of the American people--partly due to the failure of Clinton's rivals, Bob Dole and Ross Perot, to raise the issue until very late in the campaign, and partly--indeed, largely--due to the successful efforts of Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media to "stonewall" the issue, which they misleadingly called a question merely of "character."

The question of abuse of power goes beyond the matter of Clinton's character: rather, it is an important substantive issue. In a presidential campaign, no single issue is more important than how an incumbent president has used the awesome powers of his office--whether the president has adhered to his oath of office, to faithfully execute the laws and to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution of the United States, which limits his powers. Yet this issue was not adequately debated during the campaign, and the American people--except for those who regularly read the Wall Street Journal, the only daily national newspaper that has been fully covering the various Clinton administration scandals--cast their votes in ignorance of the matter. Like Watergate, however, the issue of President Clinton's abuse of power cannot (and must not) disappear: it must be faced, if we are to remain a nation governed by the rule of law.

As in the administrations of Warren G. Harding (whose secretary of the interior was convicted of taking bribes in the infamous "Teapot Dome" scandal) and Richard M. Nixon (whose Vice President, Spiro Agnew, resigned and subsequently pleaded no contest to charges that he had received kickbacks when he was Maryland governor), officials of the Clinton administration have personally profited from their offices. Most notable is former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, who resigned in the face of allegations that he had taken illegal gifts from Tyson Foods and who, according to the recent findings of a federal jury, received illegal gifts from Sun-Diamond Growers,who apparently sought favors from his Department. The late Ron Brown, former Commerce Secretary, before his death in a tragic air crash in Bosnia, also was being investigated by a special prosecutor for various offenses, including receipt of bribes and falsification of his financial disclosure report. And Energy Secr etary Hazel O'Leary's global junkets have been treated so cavalierly within the administration that Energy staffers sport T-shirts with her "world tour" logo.

More recently, allegations of illegal campaign contributions by Indonesians to the Democratic Party--what some commentators have called "Indogate"--raise the appearance that, under the Clinton administration, American foreign policy is for sale. Even if, upon investigation, it turns out that the administration did not ignore Indonesian human rights abuses in return for the contributions, there still remains the troubling issue of John Huang's dual role as a Democratic fundraiser and an official in the Commerce Department. The underlying problem is not the campaign finance system, as some have erroneously asserted, but rather the Clinton administration's disturbing propensity to use the power of the federal government for political aggrandizement. The Commerce Department is not the only federal agency that has been politicized by the Clinton administration: so too have been the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the agency that administers federal disaster-reli ef dollars (whose giveaways have been used as a political tool to tie local communities to the federal government); the Immigration and Naturalization Service (which, in an election-year push to grant citizenship to 1.2 million immigrants, the Clinton White House pressured to speed up processing of forms, allowing tens of thousands to become Americans before criminal record checks were done); and, possibly, even the Internal Revenue Service (which, according to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, might have been used to harass conservative nonprofits such as the Western Journalism Center and the Heritage Foundation). Misuse of IRS audits and investigation powers against White House "enemies," it should be noted, were among the allegations raised in the articles of impeachment drawn up by the House Judiciary Committee against Richard Nixon in 1974.

Like Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton also has abused the powers of his office, both by usurping powers that the Constitution assigns to Congress and by misusing legitimate presidential powers. Long before the Watergate scandal fully broke, Nixon's unprecedented use of the powers of his office to create what critics described as an "imperial presidency" was roundly condemned by academics and Congressional leaders. President Clinton has taken the "imperial presidency" to new heights. He has set new, dangerous precedents for presidential over-reaching of commander-in-chief powers with his use of American troops as "peacekeepers"--essentially, a Peace Corps with guns--in the military occupation of both Haiti and Bosnia, without the prior approval of Congress. Just as President Nixon failed to faithfully execute the law by impounding funds appropriated by Congress, President Clinton has demonstrated a willingness to flout the law in order to further his pol icy objectives. An obvious example is his administration's unwillingness to enforce the Supreme Court's 1988 Beck decision, ruling that workers are entitled to a refund of union dues money used for political purposes (such as the AFL-CIO's $35-million announced effort to help Democratic candidates in this year's Congressional elections).

More ominously, the Clinton administration has resurrected Nixon's doctrine of executive privilege and extended it further than even President Nixon was willing to go. Not only has the Clinton administration invoked the doctrine to justify its failure to turn over documents subpoenaed by Congressional committees (most recently, a memo from FBI Director Louis Freeh that is said tobe highly critical of the administration's anti-drug policy), but also to claim immunity for him from civil action lawsuits--such as Paula Jones's sexual harassment suit--until his term as president expires. Clinton's claim of presidential immunity is extraordinary and unprecedented; it amounts to the claim that the president is above the law.

The most egregious form of presidential corruption, however, involves presidential abuse of power as a part of a criminal conspiracy. This was the Watergate scandal that brought about the downfall of Richard Nixon's presidency. This too is the form of corruption involved in the allegations raised about both President Clinton and his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, in connection with the three major scandals that continue to be investigated by independent prosecutors and Congressional committees: Whitewater, "Travelgate," and "Filegate." Unlike Watergate--the underlying crime of which was, as it has been aptly described, a "third-rate burglary"--Whitewater involves a far more serious underlying crime, the looting of a savings and loan association, that cost American taxpayers approximately $60 million. As in Watergate, however, in Whitewater the critical matter is not the underlying crime but the cover-up. The President and Mrs. Clinton, acting on the ir own and with their subordinates, are charged with, among other things, withholding relevant and material evidence; making false or misleading statements to the FBI and Congressional investigators; interfering with FBI and Justice Department investigations (including that of the death of White House counsel Vince Foster, who was deeply involved in the Whitewater fraud); obstructing justice by destroying documentary evidence that might be used against them; and willfully disobeying Congressional subpoenas. All of these allegations of wrongdoing are astonishingly similar to those specified in the articles of impeachment drawn up against Richard Nixon in 1974.

Travelgate and Filegate involve allegations of still more serious wrongdoing: misuse of the FBI to bring fraudulent charges against the former employees of the White House Travel Office, in order to make room for Clinton cronies; and the collection and storage in the White House, in violation of the Privacy Act, of confidential FBI background files on hundreds of individuals no longer employed in the White House. Political columnist David Broder--hardly a conservative--has condemned such misuse of the FBI as "one of the most flagrant abuses of constitutional authority any president can allow or commit."

Yet another flagrant abuse of power being contemplated by the Clinton White House received some attention in the press in the weeks before the election. Asked whether he would issue a presidential pardon to his former Whitewater partner Susan McDougal (who in addition to her felony conviction is currently in jail on contempt-of-court charges for refusing to answer the grand jury's question, "Did the president testify truthfully?"), Clinton refused to rule out the possibility.

209 years ago, one of the leading Antifederalist opponents of ratification of the Constitution, George Mason of Virginia, warned that a future president might abuse his pardoning power, exercising it "to screen from Punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the Crime, and thereby prevent a Discovery of his own Guilt." For over two centuries, scholars have dismissed such Antifederalist warnings as the paranoid fears of "men of little faith" in the Constitution. With Bill Clinton in the White House, what was once considered ludicrous is now a realistic possibility.

It takes how much villainy to raze a presidency?

David N. Mayer is a Professor of Law and History at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio"

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/v4n6/mayer.html

I think the last two posts make Obama look pretty good. Thanks for playing.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2011, 01:08:37 PM
Here's a tat for your tit, RM:

That's not a tat.  That's a tramp stamp.

Quote from: we vs us on November 10, 2011, 01:47:51 PM
That's not a tat.  That's a tramp stamp.

... I vote "Rand Stamp"

http://www.fullcontext.org/people/mayer.htm

QuoteQ: How were you introduced to the writings of Ayn Rand?

Mayer: I read Anthem for my 11th-grade English class and was profoundly moved by it. Then in a bookstore I discovered Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness and read all the essays while I was still in high school. Then, during the summer following my freshman year in college, while I was interning in Washington, D.C., I read The Fountainhead. It was an eventful summer—the summer of 1974—and I observed the downfall of Nixon's presidency by day, and read about Howard Roark at night. I followed up with Atlas Shrugged over winter break during my sophomore year. By spring of that year, I was a subscriber to The Ayn Rand Letter and began buying and reading all the other Rand books, both fiction and non-fiction. By that time, I'd also changed my major to history. Both the experience of being a Washington intern (I worked at the Library of Congress, where I got a good insider's view of what's wrong with the federal government) and reading Rand helped shape my interest in political philosophy; and at the University of Michigan at that time, the best courses in that subject weren't in the philosophy department but in the history department.

Yeah, real unbiased Ayn Rand dittohead.... d'oh.

Allegations for Billy Bob versus convictions.  Yeah, they're the same...

One of the complaints for Billy was the pardons he gave - which in reality were on a par with most Presidents, but notice how out of the 171 W gave, about 35 were for drug convictions - cocaine, marijuana, etc.  Had to get his buddies freed up for his big retirement party, I guess.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 10, 2011, 09:01:53 AM
A TV reporter from his home town talks to another guy who says he put audio tape in a machine and his voice proves he is innocent. You some kinda gullible.

Voice Stress Analysis doesn't work over TV because there isnt the audio bandwidth to reproduce the vocal microtremors necessary.
And even if it did work, VSA, like polygraphy, only shows a stress response to a question.

Passing a "lie detector" is just a matter of who's paying for the test.

Quote from: patric on November 10, 2011, 02:17:15 PM
Voice Stress Analysis doesn't work over TV because there isnt the audio bandwidth to reproduce the vocal microtremors necessary.
And even if it did work, VSA, like polygraphy, only shows a stress response to a question.

Passing a "lie detector" is just a matter of who's paying for the test.

TV makes the voice sound fat.

Excellent research by Ms. Coulter. 

Quote

David Axelrod's Pattern Of Sexual Misbehavior

By Ann Coulter
Herman Cain has spent his life living and working all over the country — Indiana, Georgia, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Washington, D.C. — but never in Chicago.

So it's curious that all the sexual harassment allegations against Cain emanate from Chicago: home of the Daley machine and Obama consigliere David Axelrod.

Suspicions had already fallen on Sheila O'Grady, who is close with David Axelrod and went straight from being former Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley's chief of staff to president of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA), as being the person who dug up Herman Cain's personnel records from the National Restaurant Association (NRA).

The Daley-controlled IRA works hand-in-glove with the NRA. And strangely enough, Cain's short, three-year tenure at the NRA is evidently the only period in his decades-long career during which he's alleged to have been a sexual predator.

After O'Grady's name surfaced in connection with the miraculous appearance of Cain's personnel files from the NRA, she issued a Clintonesque denial of any involvement in producing them — by vigorously denying that she knew Cain when he was at the NRA. (Duh.)

And now, after a week of conservative eye-rolling over unspecified, anonymous accusations against Cain, we've suddenly got very specific sexual assault allegations from an all-new accuser out of ... Chicago.

Herman Cain has never lived in Chicago. But you know who has? David Axelrod! And guess who lived in Axelrod's very building? Right again: Cain's latest accuser, Sharon Bialek.

Bialek's accusations were certainly specific. But they also demonstrated why anonymous accusations are worthless.

Within 24 hours of Bialek's press conference, friends and acquaintances of hers stepped forward to say that she's a "gold-digger," that she was constantly in financial trouble — having filed for personal bankruptcy twice — and, of course, that she had lived in Axelrod's apartment building at 505 North Lake Shore Drive, where, she admits, she knew the man The New York Times calls Obama's "hired muscle."

Throw in some federal tax evasion, and she's Obama's next Cabinet pick.

The reason all this is relevant is that both Axelrod and Daley have a history of smearing political opponents by digging up claims of sexual misconduct against them.

John Brooks, Chicago's former fire commissioner, filed a lawsuit against Daley six months ago claiming Daley threatened to smear him with sexual harassment accusations if Brooks didn't resign. He resigned — and the sexual harassment allegations were later found to be completely false.

Meanwhile, as extensively detailed in my book "Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America," the only reason Obama became a U.S. senator — allowing him to run for president — is that David Axelrod pulled sealed divorce records out of a hat, first, against Obama's Democratic primary opponent, and then against Obama's Republican opponent.

One month before the 2004 Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, Obama was way down in the polls, about to lose to Blair Hull, a multimillionaire securities trader.

But then The Chicago Tribune — where Axelrod used to work — began publishing claims that Hull's second ex-wife, Brenda Sexton, had sought an order of protection against him during their 1998 divorce proceedings.

From then until Election Day, Hull was embroiled in fighting the allegation that he was a "wife beater." He and his ex-wife eventually agreed to release their sealed divorce records. His first ex-wife, daughters and nanny defended him at a press conference, swearing he was never violent. During a Democratic debate, Hull was forced to explain that his wife kicked him and he had merely kicked her back.

Hull's substantial lead just a month before the primary collapsed with the nonstop media attention to his divorce records. Obama sailed to the front of the pack and won the primary. Hull finished third with 10 percent of the vote.

Luckily for Axelrod, Obama's opponent in the general election had also been divorced.

The Republican nominee was Jack Ryan, a graduate of Dartmouth and Harvard law and business schools, who had left his lucrative partnership at Goldman Sachs to teach at an inner-city school on the South Side of Chicago.

But in a child custody dispute some years earlier, Ryan's ex-wife, Hollywood sex kitten Jeri Lynn Ryan, had alleged that, while the couple was married, Jack had taken her to swingers clubs in Paris and New York.

Jack Ryan adamantly denied the allegations. In the interest of protecting their son, he also requested that the records be put permanently under seal.

Axelrod's courthouse moles obtained the "sealed" records and, in no time, they were in the hands of every political operative in Chicago. Knowing perfectly well what was in the records, Chicago Tribune attorneys flew to California and requested that the court officially "unseal" them — over the objections of both Jack and Jeri Ryan.

Your honor, who knows what could be in these records!

A California judge ordered them unsealed, which allowed newspapers to publish the salacious allegations, and four days later, Ryan dropped out of the race under pressure from idiot Republicans (who should be tracked down and shot).

With a last-minute replacement of Alan Keyes as Obama's Republican opponent, Obama was able to set an all-time record in an Illinois Senate election, winning with a 43 percent margin.

And that's how Obama became a senator four years after losing a congressional race to Bobby Rush. (In a disastrous turn of events, Rush was not divorced.)

Axelrod destroyed the only two men who stood between Obama and the Senate with illicitly obtained, lurid allegations from their pasts.

In 2007, long after Obama was safely ensconced in the U.S. Senate, The New York Times reported: "The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece (on Hull's sealed divorce records) later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had 'worked aggressively behind the scenes' to push the story."

Some had suggested, the Times article continued, that Axelrod had "an even more significant role — that he leaked the initial story."

This time, Obama's little helpers have not only thrown a bomb into the Republican primary, but are hoping to destroy the man who deprives the Democrats of their only argument in 2012: If you oppose Obama, you must be a racist.

Ha...Coulter.

Quote from: Townsend on November 10, 2011, 03:22:39 PM
Ha...Coulter.

That's fine.  Ignore dirty Chi-town smear politics at your own peril.  Still a very well thought out and researched piece.  Does it concern you in the least that Axlerod has gone so far as to pilfer sealed court documents on a previous Obama opponent?  If you or I pulled that crap, we'd be sitting in prison right now.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2011, 03:31:10 PM
That's fine.  Ignore dirty Chi-town smear politics at your own peril.  Still a very well thought out and researched piece.  Does it concern you in the least that Axlerod has gone so far as to pilfer sealed court documents on a previous Obama opponent?  If you or I pulled that crap, we'd be sitting in prison right now.

Does it bother you that you're treating Ann Coulter as a primary source? 

Conan,
You seem to be doing more than usual of this lately.  I am concerned.  Have you had a doctor check up lately?  Maybe an electrolyte imbalance?

Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2011, 12:42:10 PM
So your line is that Democrats are not corrupt or less corrupt than Republicans?  That's rich...

No, I said that corrupt Democrats resign or are voted out. Corrupt Republicans keep getting elected unless they're actually imprisoned.

dbacks: Ron Paul has some kooky ideas, but he has a consistent worldview that he doesn't change at a whim. His points are arrived at by way of logic applied to the way he sees the world. His policy positions are not up for bid. He does not change his views to win a primary. As a politician, he's probably the best we could ask for. Unfortunately, his world view does not necessarily align with the facts as presently known. It's not batsh*tinsanity, though.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2011, 03:31:10 PM
That's fine.  Ignore dirty Chi-town smear politics at your own peril.  Still a very well thought out and researched piece.  Does it concern you in the least that Axlerod has gone so far as to pilfer sealed court documents on a previous Obama opponent?  If you or I pulled that crap, we'd be sitting in prison right now.

It's Coulter.

Something else that gets me.  5 women come out and say this man did things that make him very bad and in no way fit to lead the USA.  A large faction of people decide they are all lying and set up by those who don't want the man to win the presidency.   It seems strange.

Quote from: we vs us on November 10, 2011, 03:40:53 PM
Does it bother you that you're treating Ann Coulter as a primary source? 

I personally don't care for Coulter either but you and others are choosing to ignore some interesting facts because you don't like the messenger.  I don't like her either and seldom read her columns, but this one was brought to my attention and it was really startling.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2011, 04:03:50 PM
I personally don't care for Coulter either but you and others are choosing to ignore some interesting facts because you don't like the messenger.  I don't like her either and seldom read her columns, but this one was brought to my attention and it was really startling.

She says "hollywood sex kitten".  It's like reading the World News.

Quote from: Townsend on November 10, 2011, 04:00:30 PM
It's Coulter.

Something else that gets me.  5 women come out and say this man did things that make him very bad and in no way fit to lead the USA.  A large faction of people decide they are all lying and set up by those who don't want the man to win the presidency.   It seems strange.

Ah, but it's fascinating how these claims have now metastasized into he's a molester or a monster.  Next it will be cobbled together he's a serial rapist.  Again I ask: Where were these women when he was a nobody in the polls?  Why does the second identified accuser who also filed complaints at her next job want all five women to have a joint presser?  It's theatrics and many people are seeing through this. 

They can't pick on Cain in any other way, so they've gone the most salacious route possible where he's go no defense other than his own denials against claims for which there's no corroborating witnesses and no evidence.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2011, 04:09:41 PM
Ah, but it's fascinating how these claims have now metastasized into he's a molester or a monster.  Next it will be cobbled together he's a serial rapist.  Again I ask: Where were these women when he was a nobody in the polls?  Why does the second identified accuser who also filed complaints at her next job want all five women to have a joint presser?  It's theatrics and many people are seeing through this. 

They can't pick on Cain in any other way, so they've gone the most salacious route possible where he's go no defense other than his own denials against claims for which there's no corroborating witnesses and no evidence.

Just an opinion but it might've scared them to think someone who attempted forceful sodomy might win the GOP nom.  So they spoke up after he started getting recognized.

They have things to pick on.  His 999 will never fly.  The IRS won't have it.  His lack of foriegn policy is scary.  That's all I've got at the moment because I doubt he'll get much farther.  He and Perry are Bachmanned.

Quote from: Townsend on November 10, 2011, 04:13:34 PM
Just an opinion but it might've scared them to think someone who attempted forceful sodomy might win the GOP nom.  So they spoke up after he started getting recognized.

They have things to pick on.  His 999 will never fly.  The IRS won't have it.  His lack of foriegn policy is scary.  That's all I've got at the moment because I doubt he'll get much farther.  He and Perry are Bachmanned.

You can't honestly believe that, can you?  There's such an orchestration to this, it's obvious.  Besides the private investigator dude in Arizona said his computer thingy says Cain is telling the truth.  That should settle it right there.

Secondly, Cain has about as much foreign policy experience as the current President or Reagan did coming into office for that matter.  Let's see under whose watch did the cold war finally start to thaw out?

I guess I'm still stuck on innocent until proven guilty instead of guilty until proven innocent.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2011, 04:18:17 PM
You can't honestly believe that, can you?  There's such an orchestration to this, it's obvious.  Besides the private investigator dude in Arizona said his computer thingy says Cain is telling the truth.  That should settle it right there.

Secondly, Cain has about as much foreign policy experience as the current President or Reagan did coming into office for that matter.  Let's see under whose watch did the cold war finally start to thaw out?

I guess I'm still stuck on innocent until proven guilty instead of guilty until proven innocent.

I've got 5 words against one at the moment.  All I've got is what the people in the box and the writers on the sites tell me.

You really think RWR was responsible for the cold war being over?

He's not in court.  He's running for POTUS.  Let's see his birth certificate.

From the TW:

(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2011/20111110_Plante20111110.jpg)

Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2011, 04:03:50 PM
I personally don't care for Coulter either but you and others are choosing to ignore some interesting facts because you don't like the messenger.  I don't like her either and seldom read her columns, but this one was brought to my attention and it was really startling.

It's not that I think the messenger is distasteful (though she is).  I think the messenger lies.  

Coulter's conclusion is the most disgusting.  That Obama has to destroy every other black candidate to make sure he seems the biggest victim of racism.  And that THAT"S the reason he gets votes from liberals.  Because liberals have to vote for the biggest victim.  So yeah, find me someone else to build this case, 'cause Coulter doesn't have the standing to build a coherent argument.

Re: Cain . . . why is it so hard to believe that these 2 . . . sorry, 5 women are telling the truth?  You're going to further and further extremes to insist that he's innocent.  Why?  

Quote from: Townsend on November 10, 2011, 04:22:00 PM
I've got 5 words against one at the moment.  All I've got is what the people in the box and the writers on the sites tell me.

You really think RWR was responsible for the cold war being over?

He's not in court.  He's running for POTUS.  Let's see his birth certificate.

My original point is, a president doesn't have to bring in a wealth of foreign policy experience, current president included.

A brilliant leader brings in people with the right experience or who are well-suited for the job.  Schultz was a very good SOS under RWR.  Other than Eisenhower, who have we had as president in the last century who really had an in-depth knowledge or experience on foreign relations prior to taking office?  How much experience did Clinton bring as governor of Arkansas or Bush as governor of Texas?  Nixon, Johnson, and Truman did bring some pretty good insight as former VP's.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2011, 04:29:16 PM
My original point is, a president doesn't have to bring in a wealth of foreign policy experience, current president included.

A brilliant leader brings in people with the right experience or who are well-suited for the job.  Schultz was a very good SOS under RWR.  Other than Eisenhower, who have we had as president in the last century who really had an in-depth knowledge or experience on foreign relations prior to taking office?  How much experience did Clinton bring as governor of Arkansas or Bush as governor of Texas?  Nixon, Johnson, and Truman did bring some pretty good insight as former VP's.

I'll give on the lack of foreign policy.  The right advisors is a good argument.

Why are tea partiers ok with the sexual misconduct claims with this guy but there are still birthers out there?  Is it because they only want to believe what they want to believe?

Quote from: we vs us on November 10, 2011, 04:27:15 PM
It's not that I think the messenger is distasteful (though she is).  I think the messenger lies.  

Coulter's conclusion is the most disgusting.  That Obama has to destroy every other black candidate to make sure he seems the biggest victim of racism.  And that THAT"S the reason he gets votes from liberals.  Because liberals have to vote for the biggest victim.  So yeah, find me someone else to build this case, 'cause Coulter doesn't have the standing to build a coherent argument.

Re: Cain . . . why is it so hard to believe that these 2 . . . sorry, 5 women are telling the truth?  You're going to further and further extremes to insist that he's innocent.  Why?  

I've left open the possibility this all could have happened, I've stated as much in previous posts.  I've also imparted my knowledge of what sort of hell corporations and even the government were dealing with when the bar was set ridiculously low for harassment claims in the 1990's.  Let's say it's true.  Does it make him less qualified to lead than Bill Clinton was considering what we knew of his proclivities prior to '92 and even moreso in '96?  Anyone care to answer that one with a simple yes or no?

Why do you insist they are telling the truth?  What's your evidence?  

What sort of credibility does Bialek's background suggest versus that of Cain, who has never faced any accusations other than the three years he was at NRA, out of a 45 year career?  Does it strike you as more than odd he became a "predator" for a three year span?

Quote from: Townsend on November 10, 2011, 04:33:40 PM
I'll give on the lack of foreign policy.  The right advisors is a good argument.

Why are tea partiers ok with the sexual misconduct claims with this guy but there are still birthers out there?  Is it because they only want to believe what they want to believe?

Birthers are another issue entirely and I'm not certain they are all tied to the TP.

Honeslty, I don't see the Cain supporters rallying around him as any different than how Obama's supporters rallied around him with the whole birther issue and other issues raised by Hillary's and McCain's slime dredgers.  Politics is a dirty business.  I'm impressed thus far Cain has not wilted under extreme pressure and quit.  I think people have underestimated him.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2011, 04:38:52 PM
Birthers are another issue entirely and I'm not certain they are all tied to the TP.

I disagree.  You're implying that this is all being done to keep him from being president.  The same was done by the birthers.

Birthers: "Where's his Birth Certificate?"  Governor of Hawaii:  "Here it is."  Birthers:  "I don't believe you.  Where's his birth certificate?"

Accusers  "He tried to force me to perform oral sex."  TP:  "We don't believe you."  Second accuser:  "He put his hands up my skirt."  TP:  We don't believe you."  Third accuser: ...

Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2011, 04:35:36 PM
Anyone care to answer that one with a simple yes or no?

As far as I recall, nobody accused Clinton of forcing himself on anyone.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2011, 04:38:52 PM
  I think people have underestimated him.

You're drunk, aren't you?

Quote from: nathanm on November 10, 2011, 05:10:11 PM
As far as I recall, nobody accused Clinton of forcing himself on anyone.

That's what I said about five pages back.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2011, 04:18:17 PM
You can't honestly believe that, can you?

Secondly, Cain has about as much foreign policy experience as the current President or Reagan did coming into office for that matter.  Let's see under whose watch did the cold war finally start to thaw out?

Your first question hits the nail on the head for the foreign policy part of this.  It is astounding that there are adults in this country that actually believe that tearing down a concrete wall in the middle of Berlin put an end, or even the beginning of an end to the 'cold war'.  And even if the last 20 years or so are completely ignored, just the absolutely obvious evidence of the last one or two or even three years would cause a thinking person to realize that not only has it NOT thawed, nor ended, but has continued through out.  (Can you spell "Putin"??)

What was actually done was to shrink the Soviet Union back to a more 'manageable' size.  Whatever manageable is....  And to put us a long ways down the road to bankruptcy.  Our continuing imperialistic voyeurism in Iraq added another $1.6 trillion nails to that coffin - just by itself.  Not to mention the 1 million civilians killed as 'collateral damage'.  Plus 4,000+ of our kids.

Maybe you are right - it is no longer a 'cold war', it has changed to a hot war.

Quote from: we vs us on November 10, 2011, 04:27:15 PM
It's not that I think the messenger is distasteful (though she is).  I think the messenger lies.  

There is know "thinking" she lies - it is a fact.

Not to mention distorts and twists.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2011, 04:35:36 PM
Why do you insist they are telling the truth?  What's your evidence?  

Evidence??  What has that got to do with your rantings and ravings about Billy Bob?  When the 3 women mentioned a few days ago have either been proven to be lying - by their own sworn testimony.  Or shown to be actually actively participating - as in writing letters and phone messages?

And yet, the RWRE Urban Myths continue....

And just a few posts back - can't remember where, but recently - there was a comment about the Swift Boaters.  Another case of being PROVEN that not only did they NOT serve with Kerry, but that the actual people who did serve with him - ALL but one - told exactly the opposite story.  Pure lies, distortions, and a massive hatchet job.  And yet, we continue to hear the proliferation of the RWRE Urban Myth about that, too.  The Swift Boaters were, and still are, the original tea baggers.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2011, 04:29:16 PM
Other than Eisenhower, who have we had as president in the last century who really had an in-depth knowledge or experience on foreign relations prior to taking office? 

How much experience did Clinton bring as governor of Arkansas or Bush as governor of Texas?  Nixon, Johnson, and Truman did bring some pretty good insight as former VP's.

You just answered your own question.

But left off Jerald Ford.  Not only understood foreign policy, but was a master at working with Congress - both houses.  As good as Johnson ever was, and perhaps better.  Plus being a pretty decent guy. 

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 11, 2011, 08:30:57 AM
You just answered your own question.

But left off Jerald Ford.  Not only understood foreign policy, but was a master at working with Congress - both houses.  As good as Johnson ever was, and perhaps better.  Plus being a pretty decent guy. 

Too bad he pardoned Nixon.  That doomed his chance for re-election.

Quote from: Hoss on November 11, 2011, 08:41:16 AM
Too bad he pardoned Nixon.  That doomed his chance for re-election.

Had to be done.  It was the only way to really put it behind us and start to heal.  Nixon would have deserved life in prison for some of the stuff he did, but it would NOT have served this country well to pursue that.

And we like to think we have a history and tradition of being merciful.  Nixon was no longer in a position to do more damage, so let him crawl into his hole and disappear.

I see where his sealed testimony is being released soon.  Haven't had a chance to go find it, but will try to over the weekend.  Very curious.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2011, 04:35:36 PM

Why do you insist they are telling the truth?  What's your evidence?  

I have five professional women from very different backgrounds all accusing him of very similar acts.  There's almost nothing to connect them other than Herman Cain, the NRA, and his advances.  Coulter's accusations notwithstanding, they didn't ALL live in Axelrod's building.  Most of these women are keeping OUT of the spotlight and refusing to identify themselves.  That's not a very good strategy if you're angling for a payday.  I also have Cain paying out two separate times to keep the accusations out of the courts.  Whether the amount is huge or not is irrelevant; there's no set "price" for silence.  

The Cain thing is playing out a bit like the Penn State thing . . . in the sense that, as it's become publicized more witnesses and victims are willing to come out of the woodwork.  Just because we only know of what he did during his days at the NRA doesn't mean that's the end of it.  Right now -- after these five separate accusations -- I'm very willing to believe that his actions continued before and after.

And finally, everyone else is right about Clinton.  The key to his innocence -- distasteful as it was -- is that he engaged in consensual behavior with all of his ladies -- Kathleen Willey's accusations notwithstanding.  

EDIT:  I'm crossing out "innocence" in re: Clinton.  He was certainly no innocent.  Please replace with "What made Clinton's actions legal"

What made Clinton's actions not illegal...

The consensual nature of the relationships.  Willey included.  As shown by the letters and phone calls she made to Billy Bob.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 11, 2011, 08:47:26 AM
And we like to think we have a history and tradition of being merciful. 

If you're rich and powerful, anyway. Unless you happen to be chosen as a fig leaf.

Quote from: nathanm on November 11, 2011, 09:01:10 AM
If you're rich and powerful, anyway. Unless you happen to be chosen as a fig leaf.

Here is the dichotomy of us....

NO country in the history of the world has done so much good for so many people...
and
NO country in the history of the world has done so much bad to so many people...


The schizoid nature of who/what we are.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 11, 2011, 09:06:09 AM
NO country in the history of the world has done so much good for so many people...
and
NO country in the history of the world has done so much bad to so many people...

I can't say for certain that either of those statements is true, especially the second. WWII-era Germany did quite a lot of bad. I don't think we've exceeded their body count yet, but maybe I'm wrong about that.

Quote from: nathanm on November 11, 2011, 09:16:09 AM
I can't say for certain that either of those statements is true, especially the second. WWII-era Germany did quite a lot of bad. I don't think we've exceeded their body count yet, but maybe I'm wrong about that.

Both are absolutely true.

No country in the world even THINKS about doing good as much as we do, let alone actually perform the act.  No one has helped more different countries and peoples in more different ways than we.  Granted, most of it has been in the last 70 years or so (since WWII), but that takes nothing away from it.  And I'm not counting the improvements to life in general by the technical advancements we have developed - others have made massive advancements there, too.

As for body counts, the extermination of 15 + million Native Americans from the Pilgrims to about 1900 was probably the single biggest chunk.  And doing bad is much more than a body count - how many millions of people were deprived of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the last 200/400 years on this land.  (Yeah, I am counting us before 1776 - it was still us back to the founding invasion force.)  And we can add the 1 million civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan as the latest body count.

Germany wasn't as bad as Russia in same era - by another 15 to 30 million.  Cambodia under Pol Pot at 20 + million in recent decades even beat Germany in WWII.

Quote from: we vs us on November 11, 2011, 08:49:48 AM
Whether the amount is huge or not is irrelevant; there's no set "price" for silence.  

My former employer used to fight product liability claims to prove a point.  It was frequently more expensive than settling.  Some are willing to settle to save time and money but regret it later.  Fortunately, I have no personal experience with the issues bombarding Cain (and I intend to keep it that way).

Quote from: we vs us on November 11, 2011, 08:49:48 AM
I have five professional women from very different backgrounds all accusing him of very similar acts.  There's almost nothing to connect them other than Herman Cain, the NRA, and his advances.  Coulter's accusations notwithstanding, they didn't ALL live in Axelrod's building.  Most of these women are keeping OUT of the spotlight and refusing to identify themselves.  That's not a very good strategy if you're angling for a payday.  I also have Cain paying out two separate times to keep the accusations out of the courts.  Whether the amount is huge or not is irrelevant; there's no set "price" for silence.  

The Cain thing is playing out a bit like the Penn State thing . . . in the sense that, as it's become publicized more witnesses and victims are willing to come out of the woodwork.  Just because we only know of what he did during his days at the NRA doesn't mean that's the end of it.  Right now -- after these five separate accusations -- I'm very willing to believe that his actions continued before and after.

And finally, everyone else is right about Clinton.  The key to his innocence -- distasteful as it was -- is that he engaged in consensual behavior with all of his ladies -- Kathleen Willey's accusations notwithstanding.  

EDIT:  I'm crossing out "innocence" in re: Clinton.  He was certainly no innocent.  Please replace with "What made Clinton's actions legal"

Do you actually recall any of the details of the Paula Jones case?  She filed suit for sexual harassment in 1994 for unwanted advances made toward her in a Little Rock hotel room by then Gov. Clinton.  While her claims were considered "baseless", Clinton paid her a settlement, as I recall, of $800 to $850K.  That's a lot of money for a "legal" action or a consensual groping.

And again, you've glossed over the fine point that many corporations have paid out settlements for harassment claims.  It's not to buy someone's silence, it's because the burden of proof is so low that they don't want the expense or embarrassment of going to court to fight claims which could range anywhere from truthful to completely spurious.  Companies know when they pay out, that without corroboration, it's a 50/50 chance they are paying out a bogus claim.

Do you appreciate how subjective the whole harassment issue is?  I hope if any of you are ever accused of it you are shown more mercy than the automatic conclusion of guilt you've thrown at Cain.

Finally, we have one person who remains anonymous who used to work at the NRA, one who had her veil of secrecy lifted (who appears to be a serial complainer and settler), a third one we know nothing about nor any details, a fourth whose friends have characterized her as a gold-digger and she was seen giving Cain a hug at a political function the week prior to her allegations.  Female 5 merely claims she was made uncomfortable by Cain asking her to arrange for him to have dinner with a woman who was in the audience where he was on a speaking engagement to be able to more fully expand on his answer to her question he had fielded.  In that case, there's really no harassment.  

Finally, I believe this story is starting to die down, even though the media is still trying to stick it into any story about Cain right now.  So long as there are no more people to come forward and no one with physical evidence or corroboration of their story, this issue dies off in a matter of a couple of weeks.  He's leading the polls.  Whomever initiated this smile-storm is probably scratching their head right now because it appears to have back-fired.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 11, 2011, 11:20:45 AM
 He's leading the polls.  

To that I offer;  Getcha a gander at the rest of the field.

Quote from: Townsend on November 11, 2011, 11:25:43 AM
To that I offer;  Getcha a gander at the rest of the field.

It was interesting to see CNN spend 10 minutes on the Perry memory loss moment yesterday at lunch.  Was that really so noteworthy?

Quote from: Conan71 on November 11, 2011, 11:26:44 AM
It was interesting to see CNN spend 10 minutes on the Perry memory loss moment yesterday at lunch.  Was that really so noteworthy?

No.  Neither is the doctor who killed MJ or the Kardashian wedding/divorce filing or a number of other things.

TV goes with what they think the sponsors will like...and with "sister" network programming.  Then they tell us it's important.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 11, 2011, 11:20:45 AM
Do you actually recall any of the details of the Paula Jones case?  She filed suit for sexual harassment in 1994 for unwanted advances made toward her in a Little Rock hotel room by then Gov. Clinton.  While her claims were considered "baseless", Clinton paid her a settlement, as I recall, of $800 to $850K.  That's a lot of money for a "legal" action or a consensual groping.

Right back at you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones

In particular the background section in the following.  There was a whole lot of he said/she said.  Like you been saying about Cain.

It's interesting that the Judge ruled in 1997 that Jones could have access to pertinent claims in the relevant timeframe, and they we got the lie about Lewinsky that was two years after the relevant timeframe.  And the judge, even though a conservative Republican, found the suit without merit and dismissed the suit, which was on appeal to get to the 'special' prosecutor stage.  Ken Starr and his ongoing adventures.

Then there is the fact that the other two have been proven to have lied - one admitted so in a sworn court document.

Leaves us with the question, how could a lie mean something about a point that was by definition not relevant to what was going on?  Interesting how lawyer minds work - am reminded of The Doors lyric "his brain is squirming like a toad".

Messy stuff isn't it?

Quote from: Conan71 on November 11, 2011, 11:20:45 AM
He's leading the polls.  Whomever initiated this smile-storm is probably scratching their head right now because it appears to have back-fired.

He has gone from 31% to 18% in two weeks. He has dropped to 15% among likely voter women.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 11, 2011, 11:41:59 AM
Then there is the fact that the other two have been proven to have lied - one admitted so in a sworn court document.

Did they lie when they said they lied?

Quote from: Red Arrow on November 11, 2011, 12:04:28 PM
Did they lie when they said they lied?

Well, who knows - but their actions throughout and other testimony would imply not.

If the internet and media had been as active twenty years ago as it is today, Clinton would not have been elected.

But times have changed. People have options to get their news and innuendo now.

Sucks to be Herman Cain. Just because Bill Clinton got away with bad behavior two decades ago doesn't mean Cain should.

He is toast.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 11, 2011, 12:43:17 PM
If the internet and media had been as active twenty years ago as it is today, Clinton would not have been elected.

But times have changed. People have options to get their news and innuendo now.

Sucks to be Herman Cain. Just because Bill Clinton got away with bad behavior two decades ago doesn't mean Cain should.

He is toast.

I disagree.  His fund-raising is up and unless someone can come up with anything substantiated and corroborated, this issue is fizzling out. 

I don't think there's much hysteria amongst his supporters because most people realize a sexual harassment claim can arise from something as simple as telling someone you like the way their hair looks or if they catch you looking them up and down, or misunderstanding an invitation to dinner when they don't realize your significant other is coming along.

Secondly, Gingrich is rising in the polls, too.  People figured he would be an early drop out because of his marital issues.  What this is telling me is  the evangelicals in the GOP hate Obama so much they will be willing to hold their nose and vote for a philanderer or suspected philanderer before they would vote for a Mormon or Obama. 

Quote from: Conan71 on November 11, 2011, 01:33:04 PM

  What this is telling me is  the evangelicals in the GOP hate Obama so much they will be willing to hold their nose and vote for a philanderer or suspected philanderer before they would vote for a Mormon or Obama. 

Hate the sin.  Love the sinner.  Hate the other faiths and mixed races.

Quote from: Townsend on November 11, 2011, 02:00:00 PM
Hate the sin.  Love the sinner.  Hate the other faiths and mixed races.

What does that say about evangelical Christians?  Sure don't act very Christian-like...

Quote from: Townsend on November 11, 2011, 02:00:00 PM
Hate the sin.  Love the sinner.  Hate the other faiths and mixed races.

Sure is a whole lot of hate for such an "accepting" religion, eh?

Quote from: Conan71 on November 11, 2011, 02:04:58 PM
Sure is a whole lot of hate for such an "accepting" religion, eh?

Eh, it's a choice.  They're not born that way.

Quote from: Townsend on November 11, 2011, 02:13:32 PM
Eh, it's a choice.  They're not born that way.

No that's what they say about teh gheys

according to recent polls, Cain'ts been Newturded.

He doesn't make much sense to me:

This comment is not directed at anyone in particular.

I don't understand how so many people still fall for the Presidential politics soap opera.  How many times do you have to go through this cycle before you wake up.  Voting for Republican vs. Democrat party nominee candidates is like voting for whether you're going to have your hand chopped off or foot chopped off and then being told you're free because you got to decide.  The Hermanator is an ex head of the Kansas City "Federal" Reserve that is here to save us by putting the IRS in charge of a national sales tax!!??   Are you kidding me?  Ok, I gotta take a breath before I start ranting.       

Quote from: nathanm on November 12, 2011, 07:59:07 PM
He doesn't make much sense to me:

He's not supposed to make sense to you.  You're a liberal.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 11, 2011, 12:43:17 PM
If the internet and media had been as active twenty years ago as it is today, Clinton would not have been elected.

But times have changed. People have options to get their news and innuendo now.

Sucks to be Herman Cain. Just because Bill Clinton got away with bad behavior two decades ago doesn't mean Cain should.

He is toast.

Clinton not elected?  He was running against H. W. Bush who had raised taxes, sparking the ire of people ignorant to financial realities.  And then against Bob Dole - decent guy who was not charismatic in any way, shape, or form.  Neither had a chance against Billy Bob.

If what you say applies, then how is Newt Gingrich resurgence explained...the guy who had the 10 year whore, then dumped the old wife to marry her.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 14, 2011, 10:37:59 AM
And then against Bob Dole - decent guy who was not charismatic in any way, shape, or form. 

Bob Dole!

Quote from: Townsend on November 14, 2011, 11:12:27 AM
Bob Dole! Dull

Now Cain is groping for answers

During a videotaped discussion with the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel editorial board, Cain flubbed a straightforward question about whether he agreed with President Barack Obama's decision to devote American resources to the uprising in Libya. Cain paused for several seconds, but could not offer a clear answer.

"President Obama supported the uprising correct? President Obama called for the removal of Gaddafi? Just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing before I say yes, I agree or no, I didn't agree," Cain said. "I do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reasons. Nope that's a different one. I gotta go back. I got all this stuff twirling around in my head. Specifically what are you asking me if I agree or don't agree with President Obama?"

Quote from: carltonplace on November 15, 2011, 09:11:54 AM
Now Cain is groping for answers

During a videotaped discussion with the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel editorial board, Cain flubbed a straightforward question about whether he agreed with President Barack Obama's decision to devote American resources to the uprising in Libya. Cain paused for several seconds, but could not offer a clear answer.

"President Obama supported the uprising correct? President Obama called for the removal of Gaddafi? Just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing before I say yes, I agree or no, I didn't agree," Cain said. "I do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reasons. Nope that's a different one. I gotta go back. I got all this stuff twirling around in my head. Specifically what are you asking me if I agree or don't agree with President Obama?"

And that's fine if people want to judge his worth as a candidate based on issues like this.  I'd almost prefer a candidate to simply say "I don't know" on a foreign policy issue rather than to listen to a clumsy response.

FWIW, Dr. Zuckerman doesn't seem to have added anything to Gropegate.  Just another stiff reading a prepared statement about meeting Cain at some NRA function written by Gloria Allred.  I'm curious how many people Cain meets a year?  I'm pretty sure I don't recall every person I met 15 years ago either.  Move along, nothing to see there.

If Zuckerman was so sure about meeting Cain and it was that memorable, then why is he reading about the encounter word-for-word from a sheet of paper?  In spite of this not being positive publicity, it's publicity which translates into name recognition, and it's gotten a lot more people focusing on Cain for better or worse.

Gropegate is done, now lets see if he can stand on his own and stay at the front of the pack.  I have a strong suspicion that if Gingrich were the nominee, he would pick Cain for VP, just based on some things he's had to say about Cain.  He's, for the most part, refrained from going toe-to-toe with Cain and refers to the two of them being preferable candidates over the others in the field.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 15, 2011, 09:25:55 AM
And that's fine if people want to judge his worth as a candidate based on issues like this.  I'd almost prefer a candidate to simply say "I don't know" on a foreign policy issue rather than to listen to a clumsy response.

And what else would you judge a candidate on?  He showed the hand of the 'you-know-who' very clearly - even if it is good for the U.S., and even if they agree inside, he had to try to find a way to disagree with Libya JUST BECAUSE it was during Obama's tenure.  No matter what - make the effort to make the U.S. fail, or at least appear to fail, as long as Obama is President.  He is following the plan and wishes that bubbled to the surface during the election from Limbaugh and Hannity.

Maybe if he just kept a steady hooker for 10 years?  Then dumped his wife and married the whore??  Would that be what we should judge him on?  (I think there is a vicarious streak in some people out there that is secretly cheering and mentally high-fiving Newt, while saying, "Yeah!" for all that.  The ones that are causing him to rise in the polls.)

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 15, 2011, 09:38:19 AM
And what else would you judge a candidate on?  He showed the hand of the 'you-know-who' very clearly - even if it is good for the U.S., and even if they agree inside, he had to try to find a way to disagree with Libya JUST BECAUSE it was during Obama's tenure.  No matter what - make the effort to make the U.S. fail, or at least appear to fail, as long as Obama is President.  He is following the plan and wishes that bubbled to the surface during the election from Limbaugh and Hannity.

Maybe if he just kept a steady hooker for 10 years?  Then dumped his wife and married the whore??  Would that be what we should judge him on?  (I think there is a vicarious streak in some people out there that is secretly cheering and mentally high-fiving Newt, while saying, "Yeah!" for all that.  The ones that are causing him to rise in the polls.)

First, knock off the whore stuff on Gingrich's wife.  It lowers the level of discussion.

Second, I agree with you on the Libya point.  It really doesn't hurt someone to agree with some of the incumbent president's policies.  Cain may simply be so scared of popping off with the wrong comment right now because of all the recent negative publicity.  Plus we all saw how bad Palin was treated for mis-handling questions in the '08 race.  Cain is a confident man in general, but I think he's deathly afraid of saying the wrong thing and then having it plastered all over the media for the next few days.

I think Perry is done, but he at least was able to put a humorous spin on his lock up last week by appearing on Letterman the next night and poking fun at himself.  It gave him a very human persona, and his handlers were brilliant to broker that appearance even though I suspect he will fade to also-ran or running mate material.

I really don't get why you guys haven't accepted the Mormon and RomneyCare.

But I can't wait to see how you build your arguments to destroy Obama and make Mitt fit.... ;)

Quote from: Teatownclown on November 15, 2011, 11:43:25 AM
I really don't get why you guys haven't accepted the Mormon and RomneyCare.

But I can't wait to see how you build your arguments to destroy Obama and make Mitt fit.... ;)

(http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/11/14/petersgopdebate_custom.jpg?t=1321296685&s=4)

Quote from: Conan71 on November 15, 2011, 11:32:56 AM
I think Perry is done, but he at least was able to put a humorous spin on his lock up last week by appearing on Letterman the next night and poking fun at himself.  It gave him a very human persona, and his handlers were brilliant to broker that appearance even though I suspect he will fade to also-ran or running mate material.

(http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/11/11/cg4ebd278e1d5cf_custom.jpg?t=1321052237&s=4)

Quote from: Teatownclown on November 15, 2011, 11:43:25 AM
I really don't get why you guys haven't accepted the Mormon and RomneyCare.

But I can't wait to see how you build your arguments to destroy Obama and make Mitt fit.... ;)

Obama doesn't need anyone else to destroy him.  He's done a fine job of it all on his own.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 15, 2011, 11:32:56 AM
First, knock off the whore stuff on Gingrich's wife.  It lowers the level of discussion.

I made a reply earlier and it is now gone, so I guess I have been censured.

Let me only say that obviously we have a significant difference of opinion.

Per a TW post:

QuoteRepublican presidential candidate Herman Cain is scheduled to visit Oklahoma for an Oklahoma Republican Party rally next month, the party said...

Quote from: Townsend on November 16, 2011, 10:12:54 AM
Per a TW post:

I think FMC and I will pass, just in case he really is a groper.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 16, 2011, 10:25:45 AM
I think FMC and I will pass, just in case he really is a groper.

Just carry your hat in front of you.

Let Herman roll you a fattee...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/herman-cain-loosen-federal-marijuana-restrictions-160520011.html

At a campaign stop in Urbandale, Iowa, Tuesday, Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said he supports letting states establish their own laws regarding medical marijuana.

"If states want to legalize medical marijuana, I think that's a state's right," Cain said, according to NBC News. "Because one of my overriding approaches to looking at all of these issue --most of them belong at the state, because when you do something federally . . .  you try to force one-size-fits-all."

The federal government restricts consumption of marijuana under current law, but 16 states and the District of Columbia have passed measures to allow use of the drug in some form, causing friction between federal and state authorities. Despite  support in years past from President Obama for reforming federal marijuana laws, the Drug Enforcement Agency continues to raid  dispensaries that operate where marijuana use is legal on the state level.

A Gallup Poll conducted in October found that half of the population supports legalizing the drug. Cain's fellow GOP presidential candidates Texas Rep. Ron Paul and Texas Gov. Rick Perry have also voiced support for allowing state and local discretion on the issue.

Uh oh.  With all of this talk of Fair Taxes and allowing the states to make their own decisions, one might think Herman a free-thinker, or even, banish the idea, a Libertarian.  Don't let the Republicans know. Shhhhh!

Quote from: Gaspar on November 16, 2011, 01:53:46 PM
Uh oh.  With all of this talk of Fair Taxes and allowing the states to make their own decisions, one might think Herman a free-thinker, or even, banish the idea, a Libertarian.  Don't let the Republicans know. Shhhhh!

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 16, 2011, 01:48:38 PM
Let Herman roll you a fattee...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/herman-cain-loosen-federal-marijuana-restrictions-160520011.html

At a campaign stop in Urbandale, Iowa, Tuesday, Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said he supports letting states establish their own laws regarding medical marijuana.

"If states want to legalize medical marijuana, I think that's a state's right," Cain said, according to NBC News. "Because one of my overriding approaches to looking at all of these issue --most of them belong at the state, because when you do something federally . . .  you try to force one-size-fits-all."

The federal government restricts consumption of marijuana under current law, but 16 states and the District of Columbia have passed measures to allow use of the drug in some form, causing friction between federal and state authorities. Despite  support in years past from President Obama for reforming federal marijuana laws, the Drug Enforcement Agency continues to raid  dispensaries that operate where marijuana use is legal on the state level.

A Gallup Poll conducted in October found that half of the population supports legalizing the drug. Cain's fellow GOP presidential candidates Texas Rep. Ron Paul and Texas Gov. Rick Perry have also voiced support for allowing state and local discretion on the issue.

Oh dude!  That's cool!

Wait, what was he going to do again?

Quote from: Gaspar on November 16, 2011, 01:53:46 PM
Uh oh.  With all of this talk of Fair Taxes and allowing the states to make their own decisions, one might think Herman a free-thinker, or even, banish the idea, a Libertarian.  Don't let the Republicans know. Shhhhh!

Time to send another couple of Benjamins?

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 16, 2011, 01:55:21 PM
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

That's two times more than most democrats clocks.

Quote from: Red Arrow on November 16, 2011, 06:02:25 PM
That's two times more than most democrats clocks.

Ah, grasshopper...  no.

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 17, 2011, 08:24:55 AM
Ah, grasshopper...  no.

So tell me how often a clock that is consistently 2 seconds fast is correct in a day.  I say zero.

Quote from: Red Arrow on November 17, 2011, 09:05:29 AM
So tell me how often a clock that is consistently 2 seconds fast is correct in a day.  I say zero.

The time is always correct as long as you get enough people to agree to it.

If you're on an island with 14 people and get them to agree it's 15 o'clock then it's 15 o'clock.

If you're in a county in Indiana and get that county to agree it's one hour different to the rest of the nation, then it's one hour different to the rest of the nation.

If you come up on a Sunday morning in Autumn and get enough people to agree to push their clocks back an hour then guess what happens.

Or if you are off in space somewhere like Cain is most of the time, then you will be running on a relativistic shift.

Quote from: Townsend on November 17, 2011, 11:10:17 AM
The time is always correct as long as you get enough people to agree to it.

I am talking about the instruments we use to indicate the time, not time itself.

Back to being contrary just to be contrary?

Quote from: Red Arrow on November 17, 2011, 12:26:02 PM
I am talking about the instruments we use to indicate the time, not time itself.

Back to being contrary just to be contrary?

QuoteSo tell me how often a clock that is consistently 2 seconds fast is correct in a day.  I say zero.

Your post wasn't? 

Quote from: Townsend on November 17, 2011, 12:28:58 PM
Your post wasn't? 

Nope, not just being contrary (this time).

OK, I will spell it out for you.

A clock that is consistently 2 seconds (or any amount) faster or slower than the agreed time standard will always indicate the incorrect time when compared to that standard.

A clock that runs fast will either never be correct or correct once depending on whether it was set ahead or behind the accepted time standard.  Let me know if you don't understand why, I'll explain this too.

Same with a clock that runs slow.

Quote from: Red Arrow on November 17, 2011, 12:50:28 PM
Nope, not just being contrary (this time).

OK, I will spell it out for you.

A clock that is consistently 2 seconds (or any amount) faster or slower than the agreed time standard will always indicate the incorrect time when compared to that standard.

A clock that runs fast will either never be correct or correct once depending on whether it was set ahead or behind the accepted time standard.  Let me know if you don't understand why, I'll explain this too.

Same with a clock that runs slow.

You've missed the point and this is way off topic anyway.  I call this conversation moot.

Turning to the left and "Moot".  Turning to the right and "Moot".

Oh, and back on topic.  It appears Herman's campaign is going just fine and Gropegate is dissipating like a fart in the wind.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 17, 2011, 01:33:01 PM
Oh, and back on topic.  It appears Herman's campaign is going just fine and Gropegate is dissipating like a fart in the wind.

Damn!  I'm gonna miss. . .
(http://warnerkirby.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/02/jennifercoolidge.jpg)

Quote from: Gaspar on November 17, 2011, 01:59:53 PM
Damn!  I'm gonna miss. . .
(http://warnerkirby.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/02/jennifercoolidge.jpg)

Curious.  Do you think Ms. Buyalick and Dr. Zuckerman were paid directly by the DNC or do you suppose the bill was sent by Ms. Allred's office?  Their scripted readings for the media were truly pathetic. 

No Conan,

They were sold a load of crap by the DNC like everyone else.

"If you do this, you will make a bundle. . ."

Quote from: Gaspar on November 17, 2011, 02:22:35 PM
No Conan,

They were sold a load of crap by the DNC like everyone else.

"If you do this, you will make a bundle. . ."

Poor thing, doesn't even look like she will have the staying power of Donna Rice or Jessica Hahn.  I guess her 15 minutes is officially over.  Amazing how the unmasked anonymous accuser has backed off since it was pointed out she's a chronic complainer and the "other 4" were not willing to join her on stage for a "confrontation".

You know, I think I will go head and send even more money today.  I'm sure Herman could use it.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 17, 2011, 01:33:01 PM
It appears Herman's campaign is going just fine and Gropegate is dissipating like a fart in the wind.

Really? Here is the new Rassmussan Poll...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/iowa/2012_iowa_republican_caucus

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Iowa Republican caucus-goers shows Gingrich with 32% followed by former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney at 19%. Georgia businessman Herman Cain, who led in Iowa last month, drops to third with 13% of the vote.

Eighty-six percent (86%) of Iowa caucus-goers have followed stories of the sexual harassment allegations leveled against Cain. Forty-two percent (42%) believe the allegations are at least somewhat likely to be both serious and true, and 41% give Cain's campaign good or excellent marks for its response to the allegations. Twenty-one percent (21%) say the Cain campaign did a poor job handling the allegations. These findings are similar to those found among Republicans nationwide.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 17, 2011, 02:45:08 PM
Really? Here is the new Rassmussan Poll...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/iowa/2012_iowa_republican_caucus

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Iowa Republican caucus-goers shows Gingrich with 32% followed by former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney at 19%. Georgia businessman Herman Cain, who led in Iowa last month, drops to third with 13% of the vote.

Eighty-six percent (86%) of Iowa caucus-goers have followed stories of the sexual harassment allegations leveled against Cain. Forty-two percent (42%) believe the allegations are at least somewhat likely to be both serious and true, and 41% give Cain's campaign good or excellent marks for its response to the allegations. Twenty-one percent (21%) say the Cain campaign did a poor job handling the allegations. These findings are similar to those found among Republicans nationwide.

Come on!  Rasmussen is Right-Wing crap!  
Except when he's making a point I agree with!

Last week Rasmussen showed President Obama losing the 2012 election to this pair of dirty socks by a margin of 4%.

(http://lauralavigne.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/dirty-socks-on-the-floor.jpg)

Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 17, 2011, 02:45:08 PM
Really? Here is the new Rassmussan Poll...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/iowa/2012_iowa_republican_caucus

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Iowa Republican caucus-goers shows Gingrich with 32% followed by former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney at 19%. Georgia businessman Herman Cain, who led in Iowa last month, drops to third with 13% of the vote.

Eighty-six percent (86%) of Iowa caucus-goers have followed stories of the sexual harassment allegations leveled against Cain. Forty-two percent (42%) believe the allegations are at least somewhat likely to be both serious and true, and 41% give Cain's campaign good or excellent marks for its response to the allegations. Twenty-one percent (21%) say the Cain campaign did a poor job handling the allegations. These findings are similar to those found among Republicans nationwide.

Considering the seriousness of the claims, those are pretty good numbers and they are also plagued by poll lag.  Wait a couple or three weeks and no more bimbos alleged victims are trotted out, I suspect you will see him gain popularity.  There's still six weeks to go to Iowa, his fund-raising is going quite well, and Iowa doesn't make or break a campaign though it can present an opportunity to re-tool a campaign if the candidate did not resonate well there.  Consider that Tom Harkin (Okay so he's an Iowan) had something like 70% in 1992 and Clinton was less than 5%, Gephardt won in '88 and Dukakis finished 3rd on the Dem side.

Of great interest on the GOP side: Huckabee was an upset winner in '08 with 34% and McCain finished third with 13% in Iowa but went on to win the nomination.  Close numbers to the current crop.

Bob Dull and Bush Sr. had a similar spread in the '88 caucus with Bush finishing third behind Dull and Pat Robertson.

In other words there's historical precedence for this sort of spread from first to third (or worse) in Iowa and have the candidate who is trailing ending up being the nominee and eventual president.

Keep in mind also there are many states with open primaries.  Democrats can vote for a candidate they think cannot unseat Obama and I suspect a lot of them will lean toward Cain since he's an outsider or think they can re-fan the flames of doubt by doing another perp walk of harassment accusers.

You would think the libs would want Cain to be the front-runner.  Can you imagine what would happen to poor President Obama if he had to face Newt in a debate?

Quote from: Gaspar on November 17, 2011, 03:08:12 PM
You would think the libs would want Cain to be the front-runner.  Can you imagine what would happen to poor President Obama if he had to face Newt in a debate?

Newt?  Really?  He can't even explain the money from Freddy and sound sincere.

I agree though.  Cain is a great candidate for Obama.

Quote from: Gaspar on November 17, 2011, 03:08:12 PM
You would think the libs would want Cain to be the front-runner.  Can you imagine what would happen to poor President Obama if he had to face Newt in a debate?

(http://earthfirst.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/cat-fight-climate-bill.jpg)

Quote from: Gaspar on November 17, 2011, 01:59:53 PM
Damn!  I'm gonna miss. . .
(http://warnerkirby.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/02/jennifercoolidge.jpg)

This is, um, not Bialek.  This is Jennifer Coolidge, an actress who was in Best In Show, Legally Blonde, and other such trifles. 

Not Herman Cain's accuser.  Just so we have that straight. 

Quote from: we vs us on November 17, 2011, 03:37:59 PM
This is, um, not Bialek.  This is Jennifer Coolidge, an actress who was in Best In Show, Legally Blonde, and other such trifles. 

Not Herman Cain's accuser.  Just so we have that straight. 

He knows.  She'll always be Stifler's mom.

Quote from: Townsend on November 17, 2011, 03:40:22 PM
He knows.  She'll always be Stifler's mom.

Ohhhh yeah, forgot about that one, too.

Per CBS hotsheet tweet:

QuoteA U.S. government official tells CBS News Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain is getting Secret Service protection.

Quote from: Townsend on November 17, 2011, 05:35:56 PM
Per CBS hotsheet tweet:

I think that means he's considered a serious candidate.  In spite of RM's previous post.  Third place in Iowa isn't a kiss of death.  We've had some nominees and general election winners who finished third in Iowa.

Another woman came forward saying that she and Herman Cain had a 13 year affair that ended just before he became a presidential candidate.  Cain, of course, denied it. He never met the woman.  Or he met her once or twice and tried to help her out financially.  So while he knew her, he didn't "know" her.  Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. 

By tomorrow the story will be that while helping her financially, he took her to some hotels for private instruction on best financial practices, but those meetings didn't involve copious amounts of hot fudge, feather dusters, or party games like Naked Twister.   

I just saw Herman on the TV.  He says he knows her and has for the period of time claimed.  He denies any sexual relationship.

Quote from: Red Arrow on November 28, 2011, 08:12:15 PM
I just saw Herman on the TV.  He says he knows her and has for the period of time claimed.  He denies any sexual relationship.

Of course he does.  I think the little saying 'where there's some smoke, there's fire' applies here.

His wife must be so proud of him.

In German, no translates to "Nein"

Nein, Nein, Nein.

Another Bimbo eruption, it must make Bill Clinton proud. 

Quote from: GG on November 28, 2011, 08:35:57 PM
Another Bimbo eruption, it must make Bill Clinton proud. 

I'm betting it makes Newt proud as well, seeing how his moral compass doesn't exactly float on north...

Quote from: GG on November 28, 2011, 08:35:57 PM
Another Bimbo eruption, it must make Bill Clinton proud. 

I think he may have surpassed even Clinton's count at this point. It's like a changing of the guard. It brings a tear to my eye. :'(

Quote from: Hoss on November 28, 2011, 08:37:57 PM
I'm betting it makes Newt proud as well, seeing how his moral compass doesn't exactly float on north...

You have no argument from me. 

Newt will implode too. 

Quote from: Hoss on November 28, 2011, 08:14:22 PM
Of course he does.  I think the little saying 'where there's some smoke, there's fire' applies here.

That's the easy assumption.

Quote from: Red Arrow on November 28, 2011, 08:54:10 PM
That's the easy assumption.

Especially when it starts getting difficult to count the number of women who have accused him on less than two hands....or feet.

Newt says he is the best guy to take on Obama.

http://news.yahoo.com/gingrich-im-not-perfect-yet-better-romney-222628420.html


Whew!!  The Republicontin Electric Kool-Aid Acid test is in full swing now!

Remember Tom Snyder??  Long live LSD!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4ilnADvT2s

Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 28, 2011, 10:23:31 PM
Newt says he is the best guy to take on Obama.

http://news.yahoo.com/gingrich-im-not-perfect-yet-better-romney-222628420.html


Whew!!  The Republicontin Electric Kool-Aid Acid test is in full swing now!

Remember Tom Snyder??  Long live LSD!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4ilnADvT2s

Wow...way to go Heir!

Quote from: Teatownclown on November 28, 2011, 11:42:59 PM
Wow...way to go Heir!

Good times!

We've come full circle.  This time it is the other side where the hallucinogens and psychedelics are predominant...

Just dose Guido...maybe he'll get experienced....It would be interesting to see if he'd change.

Newt can't test alcoholics...

Newt Gingrich's Latest Assault On The Constitution: Drug Test Americans Before They Get 'Any Kind Of Federal Aid'

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/11/28/376987/newt-gingrichs-latest-assault-on-the-constitution-drug-test-americans-before-they-get-any-kind-of-federal-aid/

Let's start with anyone who works for congress and make it random with any violation meaning forfeiture of all benefits and health insurance and pensions.

Test Cain too....and check for VD just to be safe.

CNN FB post:

Breaking News: Herman Cain reassessing future of his campaign for GOP presidential nomination, source close to campaign tells CNN's Wolf Blitzer. - http://bit.ly/qx5qjZ (http://bit.ly/qx5qjZ)

Quote from: Townsend on November 29, 2011, 12:45:57 PM
CNN FB post:

Breaking News: Herman Cain reassessing future of his campaign for GOP presidential nomination, source close to campaign tells CNN's Wolf Blitzer. - http://bit.ly/qx5qjZ (http://bit.ly/qx5qjZ)

Guess I might pass on that $250 photo op in OKC next Monday.

Daily Beast FB:

QuoteHerman Cain's not going anywhere. The GOP candidate told a crowd today, "The American people are going to raise some Cain in 2012!"

Soooo, there's that.

Aside from the bimbo outbreaks, I think his turn in the limelight made him look more and more like Rick Perry.

Honestly, the fidelity thing isn't much of an issue for me.  Show me a powerful individual who claims they have never cheated someone or cheated  on someone and I'll show you a liar.  It seems to go hand-in-hand.  I'm sure there are exceptions but it seems the drive for success seems to be tied to other, ahem, drives as well.  I think the only reason there's not been any sex scandals involving Romney so far is he had the foresight to pay them all off well before he announced his 2008 campaign.

Quote from: Conan71 on November 30, 2011, 10:12:34 PM
Aside from the bimbo outbreaks, I think his turn in the limelight made him look more and more like Rick Perry.

Honestly, the fidelity thing isn't much of an issue for me.  Show me a powerful individual who claims they have never cheated someone or cheated  on someone and I'll show you a liar.  It seems to go hand-in-hand.  I'm sure there are exceptions but it seems the drive for success seems to be tied to other, ahem, drives as well.  I think the only reason there's not been any sex scandals involving Romney so far is he had the foresight to pay them all off well before he announced his 2008 campaign.

Seriously? You think these guys love themselves? You betcha...

But Conan, I bet you were out there blowing Newt as he led the charge on ole Big Disappointment Bill Cliton....

Quote from: Conan71 on November 30, 2011, 10:12:34 PM
Show me a powerful individual who claims they have never cheated someone or cheated  on someone and I'll show you a liar.

I don't give a rat's donkey if a politician cheats on his wife. That's their personal life. I do have a problem when there are several outstanding allegations of harassment. Maybe in a particularly egregious case like John Edwards stepping out on his wife while she had cancer I can raise a bit of ire, but something like that is more morally suspect than garden variety strange seeking.

May need to get off the Cain train.  It goes in and out of too many tunnels!

Gas, that is funny. Such skills with subtle imagery.

The rest of you? Seriously. Such cynicism at such a young age.  I don't see the issue the same way. I supported Edwards and was crushed when he was exposed. My support of what he was saying blinded me to the obvious depth of his self admiration. I wasn't surprised by Gingrich or Cain though. Each of them seemed pretty ego driven, but I wasn't thrilled with their message so I could see them more clearly.

I don't mind a politician getting laid per se. Good for them. Celebrity brings out lots of good offers and good times. But these aren't football players. When you take on the mantle of important leadership you best have a serious, focused, mature attitude. And when you slip, its how you present yourself that matters. Prevaricating on subjects that your followers have personal experience with is usually not tolerated.

The guy from the Stewart show said it best. "I'm checking my records to see just how many men have taken 60 calls from a woman they've financially supported for 13 years....and never slept with. And, there appear to be none!"

Quote from: AquaMan on December 01, 2011, 10:00:35 AM
Gas, that is funny. Such skills with subtle imagery.

The rest of you? Seriously. Such cynicism at such a young age.  I don't see the issue the same way. I supported Edwards and was crushed when he was exposed. My support of what he was saying blinded me to the obvious depth of his self admiration. I wasn't surprised by Gingrich or Cain though. Each of them seemed pretty ego driven, but I wasn't thrilled with their message so I could see them more clearly.

I don't mind a politician getting laid per se. Good for them. Celebrity brings out lots of good offers and good times. But these aren't football players. When you take on the mantle of important leadership you best have a serious, focused, mature attitude. And when you slip, its how you present yourself that matters. Prevaricating on subjects that your followers have personal experience with is usually not tolerated.

The guy from the Stewart show said it best. "I'm checking my records to see just how many men have taken 60 calls from a woman they've financially supported for 13 years....and never slept with. And, there appear to be none!"

They are all ego-driven.  Even the ones who got into politics for purely altruistic reasons eventually fall into the ego trap.

Quote from: Conan71 on December 01, 2011, 10:04:23 AM
They are all ego-driven.  Even the ones who got into politics for purely altruistic reasons eventually fall into the ego trap.

True enough I guess. You have to have pretty good self esteem to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fame. Its the failure of the populace to put their actions in proper perspective that I am commenting on. I thought less of Clinton as a man when he screwed around. It raised commitment and discipline questions. He is not perfect, nor Cain or Gingrich. But by the time they reach their levels of operation they should have devised strategies to deal with them or left most of that stuff behind.

I wouldn't have held an affair 30 year ago against them. But the last 13 years? Or while your were leading Congress with a moral crusade? And you thought no one would notice or care? That is the immaturity of Hart.

Quote from: AquaMan on December 01, 2011, 10:00:35 AM
Gas, that is funny. Such skills with subtle imagery.

The rest of you? Seriously. Such cynicism at such a young age.  I don't see the issue the same way. I supported Edwards and was crushed when he was exposed. My support of what he was saying blinded me to the obvious depth of his self admiration. I wasn't surprised by Gingrich or Cain though. Each of them seemed pretty ego driven, but I wasn't thrilled with their message so I could see them more clearly.

I don't mind a politician getting laid per se. Good for them. Celebrity brings out lots of good offers and good times. But these aren't football players. When you take on the mantle of important leadership you best have a serious, focused, mature attitude. And when you slip, its how you present yourself that matters. Prevaricating on subjects that your followers have personal experience with is usually not tolerated.

The guy from the Stewart show said it best. "I'm checking my records to see just how many men have taken 60 calls from a woman they've financially supported for 13 years....and never slept with. And, there appear to be none!"

Very well put. 

I got even odds on which happens first...Herman Cain withdraws from the race or snow hits the ground in Tulsa.

Place your bets.

Quote from: RecycleMichael on December 02, 2011, 07:22:20 PM
I got even odds on which happens first...Herman Cain withdraws from the race or snow hits the ground in Tulsa.

Place your bets.

Been hanging out with Kivisto again?  He's a degenerate gambler too.

Are we talking a case of Marshall's?  I say Cain is out of the race before the first snow. 

Only problem is, I keep getting emails for his appearance in OKC on Monday.  I was actually hoping they would give me a Godfather's pizza for appearing in a photo with him rather than me paying $250 for a photo with someone who won't even still be an official candidate then.

So after squeezing the last few donations out, he's throwing in the towel.
It seems his supporters couldn't tolerate someone who botched an extramarital affair, so their throwing their support at someone with a lot more experience (at extramarital affairs).

Quote from: Conan71 on December 02, 2011, 07:56:15 PM
Been hanging out with Kivisto again?  He's a degenerate gambler too.

Are we talking a case of Marshall's?  I say Cain is out of the race before the first snow. 

Only problem is, I keep getting emails for his appearance in OKC on Monday.  I was actually hoping they would give me a Godfather's pizza for appearing in a photo with him rather than me paying $250 for a photo with someone who won't even still be an official candidate then.

Looks like RM wins...unless you're parsing 'withdraw' versus 'suspend'.

"Depends on what the meaning of the word is, is"....

Quote from: patric on December 03, 2011, 02:41:07 PM
So after squeezing the last few donations out, he's throwing in the towel.
It seems his supporters couldn't tolerate someone who botched an extramarital affair, so their throwing their support at someone with a lot more experience (at extramarital affairs).

Bill Clinton cannot run for office again.

Quote from: patric on December 03, 2011, 02:41:07 PM
So after squeezing the last few donations out, he's throwing in the towel.
It seems his supporters couldn't tolerate someone who botched an extramarital affair, so their throwing their support at someone with a lot more experience (at extramarital affairs).

CNN was reporting that they will start supporting nut case Bachmann.

Quote from: dbacks fan on December 03, 2011, 03:34:06 PM
CNN was reporting that they will start supporting nut case Bachmann.

It's like a huge circus, this GOP race is...

THE NIGHT THEY DROVE OLD HERMAN OUT

(sung by Joan Baez)

Herman Cain is my name and I drove the Herman Cain train
Till so many bimbos came and tore me a new one again
In the winter of twenty one one the campaign had just barely begun
I took the Cain train back home to my wife
And she beat my caboose within an inch of my life

Oh, the night they drove old Herman out
And all the bells were ringing
The night they drove old Herman out
And all the women were singing
They sang bye bye bye bye bye bye bye bye. Bye-bye!

Lifted off the comments section of the Tulsa World from someone called "Chainsaw"