DescentBB

There usually isn't much proof in such cases, but the fact that multiple people are coming forward with the same allegations is generally cause to at least raise eyebrows.

There is one gentleman here and he is Top Gun.

For the rest, you're all forgetting there where a couple of monetary settlements that occurred with several of the allegations. If NOTHING happened, then why pay a settlement, aka, hush money, to several of the women and require them to keep quiet about it? But alas, many women share my opinion. Cain has lost some support from women voters. May many more women flip him the mighty bird.

http://www.businessinsider.com/herman-c ... en-2011-11

We're right back to the good old days of when a "he said, she said" incident of sexual harassment occurred in the workplace, the "she" was rarely believed and usually paid for her allegations with punishment in return.

Yes TC, it was a horrible experience but the money made it feel all better. Just as possible these gals were opportunistic feeders. That's why things like this should be immediately dismissed and why they never are .

You know, in the face of even a smidgen of evidence, all the idiot had to do was acknowledge he made a human male mistake, apologize for it, and the whole stupid thing would have died a quiet death. He would have kept up his poll numbers because people would have felt sorry for him and I would have had nothing to gripe about. But just like Clinton, Edwards and a multitude of other politicians in both parties before Cain, they had to lie about it, deny it ever happened even in the face of evidence to the contrary and vilify their accusers. Sleezebags.

Now who is climbing in the Republican polls, little old Newt Gingrich. The very same pussbag who had the temerity to serve divorce papers on his wife while she was lying in the hospital recovering from cancer because he was having an affair with another woman. Converted to Catholicism to receive church forgiveness for it too. AND he vilified Clinton for his dalliance at the same time. Add hypocrisy to Newt's list of transgressions. WTF is wrong with "values voters" Republicans? They keep gravitating towards the most morally corrupt politicians they can find.

It's because we are all corrupt and looking for an out. If people would have enough damn balls to openly confess their faults and realize we are all in the same boat together, it instantly takes the pressure off. I've had nice walks with several of my friends lately. Guess what. We're all facked up. People have always been cowardly that way but the truth is it's a very liberating experience to all involved when you realize your not perfect .

EDIT:And while we're at it, that is the goal. To become perfected again.If you read the bible through with that in mind, you will see a cohesiveness that exists in no other literary work.

tunnelcat wrote:
For the rest, you're all forgetting there where a couple of monetary settlements that occurred with several of the allegations. If NOTHING happened, then why pay a settlement, aka, hush money, to several of the women and require them to keep quiet about it?

And how many times do insurance companies pay because someone says they tripped on the sidewalk and hurt themselves?

...which has what to do with sexual harassment allegations, exactly?

Both are un-provable and both get cash settlements because it is cheaper than going to court....thats how they are similar.

Because it's "unprovable", that makes it OK to harass someone? One person making the charge, I may have reservations, but 4 or 5 colluding together like some kind of vendetta is a whole different ball game. Now you're into conspiracy theory, which is not as likely of a scenario.

I remember Clinton saying that his accusers were part of a vast right-wing conspiracy instead of his own pattern of individual failures and history of sexual harassment. All the Republicans denied it, while all the Democrats embraced it with fervor. Which did you believe at the time woody? A single female, Lewinsky, making the charge, or Clinton's accusation that it was a product of right wingers who may have colluded together with the purpose of smearing him?

First off, Lewinsky didn't make a charge, she made a confession. On top of that, there's good reason to think that was a setup. I would bet my life that wasn't the first nor last blowjob performed in the Oval Office. He was susceptible.

tunnelcat wrote:Because it's "unprovable", that makes it OK to harass someone? One person making the charge, I may have reservations, but 4 or 5 colluding together like some kind of vendetta is a whole different ball game. Now you're into conspiracy theory, which is not as likely of a scenario.

In a presidential race I have a jaundiced view toward the veracity of anyone making accusations this late into the game and when the recipient of the accusations is leading in the poles.

tunnelcat wrote:I remember Clinton saying that his accusers were part of a vast right-wing conspiracy instead of his own pattern of individual failures and history of sexual harassment. All the Republicans denied it, while all the Democrats embraced it with fervor. Which did you believe at the time woody? A single female, Lewinsky, making the charge, or Clinton's accusation that it was a product of right wingers who may have colluded together with the purpose of smearing him?

Actually TC, I believed the spot on the dress.

OK, how about Paula Jones?

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

She didn't have a "spot" of evidence in her case. But she did have a settlement to show for it. Read the first Wiki paragraph. $850,000 was paid out as hush money. That was definitely a "he said, she said" problem too. Would your have believed Jones back then? If Lewinsky hadn't had the little piece of "evidence", would you have believed her story? Since you probably didn't like Clinton, I'm guessing you would've in her case.

Personally, I believed Clinton was a womanizer the moment he went on camera, all red faced and angry, denying any sexual relations with that woman ever took place. Kind of like Mr. Cain has done recently. Clinton's face said it all. I needed no "spot" to confirm it. Typical testosterone-overdosed politician in grand form.

The pit of poop geteth deeper for Mr. Cain.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/boyf ... 25694.html

You know, this stuff about Cain doesn't even bother me all that much. People make mistakes and some mistakes are worse than others. The media is a reflection of our culture; there was a faint hint of blood in the water and the frenzy began. It must be difficult to be a politician; the natural reaction is to deny accusations but they don't go away when you do that. Are accusations of sexual harassment enough to nullify a presidency? I don't think so, men in positions of power always seem to fail. It happens. By all means GOP, please nominate Cain for the ticket, it'll mean another four years of Obama. The only one with a true chance to beat Obama is Romney...and you guys had a problem with the church Obama went to?? Hahah...this board is going to be so fun to watch next year. I can't wait to see woodchip say that Mitt Romney is the next savior.

I think it's pretty evident to everyone now just how impotent our political leaders are in a global economy.

I think the most damning thing against Cain at the moment is the video floating around from a Q&A session he agreed to do with a newspaper...where he completely froze up for like a minute straight when asked if he would have handled Libya differently than Obama did. What the hell. First Perry can't remember his own policy proposal, and now Cain can't even figure out a massive international news story from a month ago. This is really the cream of the GOP crop?

Zuruck wrote: By all means GOP, please nominate Cain for the ticket, it'll mean another four years of Obama. The only one with a true chance to beat Obama is Romney...and you guys had a problem with the church Obama went to??

Actually if Cain winds up being the nominee, It'll allow all those who voted for Obama because they were racially insecure to now have a balanced slate.

Zuruck wrote: Hahah...this board is going to be so fun to watch next year. I can't wait to see woodchip say that Mitt Romney is the next savior.

Awww....you still don't get it. Palin is the next savior but alas she is not running.

Palin is the next savior

Top Gun wrote:I think the most damning thing against Cain at the moment is the video floating around from a Q&A session he agreed to do with a newspaper...where he completely froze up for like a minute straight when asked if he would have handled Libya differently than Obama did. What the hell. First Perry can't remember his own policy proposal, and now Cain can't even figure out a massive international news story from a month ago. This is really the cream of the GOP crop?

Yep. Cain's Perrygasm

I find it interesting that all 4 women making these claims are from Chicago. a place where Herman Cain has never lived. but a place where someone else in the political arena is from.

...are you seriously going to go there?

Top Gun wrote:...are you seriously going to go there?

I was taking his winking smiley as a hopeful sign that he wasn't serious. Still, to conclude, it's become a rough month for GOP hopefuls: Herman has wimmin problems, and can't seem to remember what that whole Libya thing is about, Perry cannot remember a Cabinet department, even though he plans to eliminate it and now Gingrich is showing the moral/ethical character he is known for by dancing around getting paid big money by the evil Freddie Mac to 'influence' Republican legislators. Hell, at this rate, perhaps Huntsman or Ron Paul have a shot, after all.

I love some of the by-lines I've seen about the Gingrich story. He's being portrayed as a "career politician"? Gasp!

callmeslick wrote:

Top Gun wrote:...are you seriously going to go there?

I was taking his winking smiley as a hopeful sign that he wasn't serious. Still, to conclude, it's become a rough month for GOP hopefuls: Herman has wimmin problems, and can't seem to remember what that whole Libya thing is about, Perry cannot remember a Cabinet department, even though he plans to eliminate it and now Gingrich is showing the moral/ethical character he is known for by dancing around getting paid big money by the evil Freddie Mac to 'influence' Republican legislators. Hell, at this rate, perhaps Huntsman or Ron Paul have a shot, after all.

And how does that compare to Obama having a racist bigot spiritual adviser or a crook slum landlord to help buy his properties or even a unrepentant terrorist as a friend? Other than being a community organizer and when he got a real job as a Senator, how many bills did he vote on by voting present? Didn't seem to hurt Obama's chances.

Top Gun wrote:I love some of the by-lines I've seen about the Gingrich story. He's being portrayed as a "career politician"? Gasp!

And he had little greedy meat hook fingers in the Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae pie, before it crashed in 2008 by the way. Just what we need, another career Washington insider who say's he's the one to fix the country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/us/po ... wanted=all

And speaking of Herman Cain, who claimed, "I'm the Koch Brothers' brother from another mother", we get with him another splendid Republican candidate bought and paid for by the 2 most powerful Plutarchs, the Kochs.

If I were Herman Cain, I'd be a just little bit peeved right now. Here he is, falling in the polls because of a new single allegation of adultery, while ol' Newt Gingrich is climbing in the polls, who is also confirmed 2??? time adulterer. Go figure those "family values" Republican voters.

a tip of my hat to Herman Cain: I had his Presidential bid done by Dec 1(earlier in this thread), but he is still hanging in there.
I love how he campaigns, but hasn't been face to face with his wife for 3 weeks......then again, if this crap were coming out about me, I might be avoiding facing my wife, especially if she was near sharp or heavy/blunt objects.

tunnelcat wrote:we get with him another splendid Republican candidate bought and paid for by the 2 most powerful Plutarchs, the Kochs.

and Obama was bought into office by George Soros . so show me the difference. are you so blind to the hypocrisy you spew???

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:we get with him another splendid Republican candidate bought and paid for by the 2 most powerful Plutarchs, the Kochs.

and Obama was bought into office by George Soros . so show me the difference. are you so blind to the hypocrisy you spew???

I realize that CUDA. As good as his stated democracy promoting ideals are, there's a dark side lurking underneath all that philanthropy. I just happen to really dislike the Koch Brothers and the corporate greed they stand for. Most of the Washington politicians are bought off by some wealthy bastard or another with some type of agenda that usually not for the greater good.

I'd just as soon have another candidate to choose from in 2012. Like I said earlier, I'm probably going to vote for independent candidates from now on, just as long as they don't harbor extreme right or left wing views or agendas. I can no longer hack the 2 main parties and their ties to money interests or religious elements.

As for Herman Cain, his wife may have had the last say. He's dropping out of the race.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-0 ... ation.html

CUDA wrote:and Obama was bought into office by George Soros . so show me the difference. are you so blind to the hypocrisy you spew???

could you provide any shred of proof for the amazing statement quoted? I mean, I campaigned for the guy from the start of his '08 candidacy, am pretty well versed on how, and by whom, the campaign was funded. George Soros played no part in the matter. What the hell are you talking about, CUDA? Hell, if Soros was going to be supportive of a Dem, it would have been Hillary over Obama, as I see it.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:and Obama was bought into office by George Soros . so show me the difference. are you so blind to the hypocrisy you spew???

could you provide any shred of proof for the amazing statement quoted? I mean, I campaigned for the guy from the start of his '08 candidacy, am pretty well versed on how, and by whom, the campaign was funded. George Soros played no part in the matter. What the hell are you talking about, CUDA? Hell, if Soros was going to be supportive of a Dem, it would have been Hillary over Obama, as I see it.

Slick, just because you were a shill for Obama doesn't mean you know the hidden avenues of funding Obama had. Reading around I found this little gem:

"And why would an Illinois state senate race be of interest to a politically savvy New York financier? Obama’s autobiography, Dreams from My Father, written with the help of terrorist Bill Ayres, had been published in 1995. Soros may have read the book and decided then and there that Obama could be the next president. He was young, ambitious, a socialist, and an empty suit who could be easily controlled by a powerful enormously wealthy patron."

An empty suit, something I stated way back when Obama ran for President. I think Slick, as much as you view yourself as being informed, I'm getting the feeling you may be the biggest dupe here. Perhaps you should try placing the opposite hat on your head and investigate how Obama came to power, who backed him and what his agenda is. Pretend you are a real investigative journalist and search. Remember, the truth will set you free

so, you 'found this little gem'? Woody, who wrote that? First off, Bill Ayers did not help Obama write his book, that anyone can tell.
Second, to call Soros a New York financial person is sort of ignoring the stage on which he operates. Finally, I was not shilling for anyone, but I WAS bundling contributions, and I can tell you quite a bit about the organization of the fundraising. That was largely why I was so convinced Obama would win in 2008.....he had a fundraising dynamic that builds on a ton of small contributors who also become field reps. Couple that with an efficient midrange bundling program(not on the scale the Repubs do it, but a nice mix of old money types along with more traditional Dem moneyed interests) and the guy can build a very big war chest. Oh, and don't look now, but he is well on his way again.......all the while, the average Tea Party first-termer is having trouble raising 60k. You all might be in for a serious shock come November if this continues to play out this way.

oh, and Woody. I know who 'brought Obama to power' in 2008.......It was guys like me, longterm Dem backers with a bit of coin who just weren't comfortable annointing Hillary. Go back and look at your 'find'. I find the use of the word 'may' amusing. Whoever your anonymous author is confesses right there to either guessing or flat-out making stuff up. Sort of de rigeur for the right for the past decade or so. Tell the lie enough and a lot of fools buy it.......such as Obama is a Muslim, wasn't born in the US, etc, etc.

Any fool could have beaten the Republicans in the last presidential go round. Don’t pat yourself on the back toooo hard.

callmeslick wrote: Tell the lie enough and a lot of fools buy it.

you mean like "Hope and Change"

Spidey wrote:Any fool could have beaten the Republicans in the last presidential go round. Don’t pat yourself on the back toooo hard.

I am not at all sure Hillary Clinton would have won the General Election over McCain.

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote: Tell the lie enough and a lot of fools buy it.

you mean like "Hope and Change"

too bad for you that the concepts of Hope or Change are 'lies'. Just because the change is gradual doesn't mean giving up hope.
I think a lot of sensible people realize that......it's a shame that 'sensible' is such a small segment of the political discourse these days. I'm sure Hope and Change will wilt before the Dickensian world of Newt Gingrich, as they did before '999' tax plans, or the astute visions of Rick Perry or Michelle Bachmann. I'd mention Mitt Romney, but can't for the life of me figure out what he stands for in the first place........

oh, and CUDA, I noted that your descripton, earlier, of what the role of the Federal Government includes mentioned neither the regulation of commerce, nor the provision for the common good, both pillars of the founding of the naiton.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote: Tell the lie enough and a lot of fools buy it.

you mean like "Hope and Change"

too bad for you that the concepts of Hope or Change are 'lies'.

not the concept at all. I agree with the concept. I'll let you figure out the rest.

what's sort of funny, CUDA, is that the folks I deal with most often, carping about 'change' are Progressives, for whom little changed, and what did change seems far too incremental. I am always astounded that those folks apparently paid little attention to the actual words Obama used, regarding common ground, a slow process, building consensus, etc. Now, it doesn't surprise me a bit to see the usual reaction on the right: basically, Obama was always going to be wrong, always was a Socialist, all the rest.


Now, to return to my question: give me some actual proof that George Soros was anything but a late-to-the party cheerleader with deep pockets, or at least have the good manners to recant your very specific claim.

I have a question. Since you claim to be a 1%'er. What exactly is your vision of the future for the 99% and how do you feel that Obama is the man to bring that vision to reality?