DescentBB

Our study in racism will start with the Clarence Thomas hearings to confirm him for SCOTUS and the now infamous pubic hair on the coke can as depicted by one Anita Hill. Seems the Dems, not able to find fault with Justice Thomas's qualifications, decided to go the death by character assassination route. Justice Thomas was a conservative and thus considered off the plantation and thus fair game for any and all methods to destroy him and keep him from being nominated.

Fast forward to the present and we have in Herman Cain another black conservative who likewise the Dems consider as being escape from the plantation and thus any means are permissible to keep him from becoming POTUS. Thus we now have allegations that Mr Cain made inappropriate sexual advances on some women. Now if any of you had any doubts that the real racists are the Democrats, let this latest attack on a black man dispel your doubts. I won't even go into the racist cartoons of Condoleezza Rice during her nomination process:

"“The depiction of Dr. Condoleezza Rice by Jeff Danziger, Pat Oliphant and Garry Trudeau as an ebonics speaking, big-lipped, black mammy who just loves her ‘massa’ is a disturbing trend in editorial cartoons,” said Michelle D. Bernard, senior vice president of the Independent Women’s Forum"

Of course if Herman Cain was a Democrat and running for office, we would never hear these things. If we did you can be sure the leakers would be the ones to come under attack as the liberals circled the wagons around their man. Alas, Mr Cain is not one of them so open to what ever disparaging comments the Dems want to say. Perhaps Mr Cain should ask one William Jefferson Clinton how he survived his initial run for POTUS and how he got the main stream press to bury the Juanita Roberts accusations.

I've been pondering the Cain/Thomas connection since Politico brought this up the other day. I have concluded that they are two very different situations. Anita Hill just sort of appeared, with no prior issue, in the middle of the Thomas confirmation hearings. I thought her claims dubious then, and still do, and felt that Thomas deserved to be confirmed on the merits, with no regard to her claims. That he has apparently become a mute since that point is disheartening, as is the partisan shilling by his wife, but fair is fair. On to poor Herman Cain. These charges were brought up, within his organization, at the time, and were at least substantive enough to merit dismissal with cash payouts and gag requirements for the alleged victims. Thus, I suspect, something untoward likely happened. Secondly, Cain is running for freaking President of the US, and, as such, had better get used to the spotlight being turned onto every detail of his life. This is the risk of backing an untested National candidacy; it's a rough game and few can play it and survive. To make it into some sort of 'this wouldn't happen to a liberal' kind of argument is idiocy. Just ask Bill Clinton, and a list of others as long as one's arm, if past behavior doesn't get dredged up no matter what one's ideology is. The difference is that Clinton is/was a master politician(good and bad aspects to that definition), and we have yet to see if Herman Cain can make the same claim. If not, adios, Herm.

oh, and any fool who suggests that either Oliphant or Trudeau EVER, EVER portrayed Condoleeza Rice as an ebonics speaking 'mammy' is both a liar and an idiot.

I didn't give ol' Clinton a pass either. Maybe the press did, except for Drudge, FOX and Limbaugh, but he was still a partying, womanizing, arrogant, LYING sleezeball. Because of that, I didn't vote for Gore either, who had the stupidity to stand beside Clinton in "solidarity" in the Rose Garden press op after the impeachment had occurred. Suckup moron.

Cain made the mistake of lying and changing his story in the press several times. Politicians can never seem to speak the truth the FIRST TIME AROUND. He comes off looking like a lying sleezeball right now. If he'd just come clean right up front, said he was sorry he'd had a lapse of judgement and that he'd paid his dues for that mistake, he'd of come off more honest and human. I can forgive a guy for his basal instincts. But to try and hide or lie about it speaks volumes about character. And to lie about one's questionable actions when there's clearly proof of a monetary settlement about one's said questionable actions is like feeding tabloid chum to the press sharks.

Speaking of idiot politicians, Rick Perry came off looking bombastic, passionate or drunk, take your pick.



Does this guy look very Presidential to anyone? Not really. I wonder what the normally serious voters of NH will think?

edit: what TC said.

I just like the predictability when any candidate becomes the front runner…

BANZAI!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Spidey wrote:I just like the predictability when any candidate becomes the front runner…

BANZAI!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and, you would doubtless agree, that fact cuts across any party or ideological line, right?

Did I mention any party?

Note the word "any" in my first comment.

callmeslick wrote:oh, and any fool who suggests that either Oliphant or Trudeau EVER, EVER portrayed Condoleeza Rice as an ebonics speaking 'mammy' is both a liar and an idiot.

"(Washington DC)---- The Faith Based Leadership Council (FBLC)(formerly the National Faith Based Initiative Coalition), a group of over 200 black clergy and members of the Faith Based Community, denounced the racial motivated attacks upon Dr. Condoleezza Rice by Editorial Cartoonists Jeff Danziger, Pat Oliphant, Garry Trudeau, the Washington Post and New York Times."

The most outragious example of Oliphant depicting Rice as a big lipped, buck tooothed caricature:

http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/002864.php

tunnelcat wrote:
Cain made the mistake of lying and changing his story in the press several times. Politicians can never seem to speak the truth the FIRST TIME AROUND. He comes off looking like a lying sleezeball right now. If he'd just come clean right up front, said he was sorry he'd had a lapse of judgement and that he'd paid his dues for that mistake, he'd of come off more honest and human. I can forgive a guy for his basal instincts. But to try and hide or lie about it speaks volumes about character. And to lie about one's questionable actions when there's clearly proof of a monetary settlement about one's said questionable actions is like feeding tabloid chum to the press sharks.

Just where did he Lie. And did you read what the accusations were based on?

uh, that depiction(which you cite as the worst) shows her to be a puppet, with exaggerated but hardly racist features or speech
patterns. Oliphant is picturing a man-child playing with his puppet. That's the best you can find. And, Trudeau, while you're at it?
Racism can be nasty, ugly stuff, but calling every stupid thing racism is equally dangerous to intelligent exchange of thought.

Lol, damnit woody. I smell a setup

callmeslick wrote:
Racism can be nasty, ugly stuff, but calling every stupid thing racism is equally dangerous to intelligent exchange of thought.

Yet that is exactly what the left was doing to anyone criticizing Obama during his election bid.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:
Racism can be nasty, ugly stuff, but calling every stupid thing racism is equally dangerous to intelligent exchange of thought.

Yet that is exactly what the left was doing to anyone criticizing Obama during his election bid.

Are we talking about the whole left or just a few specific lunatics that Fox News likes to cover?

Krom wrote:

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:
Racism can be nasty, ugly stuff, but calling every stupid thing racism is equally dangerous to intelligent exchange of thought.

Yet that is exactly what the left was doing to anyone criticizing Obama during his election bid.

Are we talking about the whole left or just a few specific lunatics that Fox News likes to cover?

No, our very own Bee labeled me as a racist for criticizing Obama. Was it everyone, of course not. There were enough that were vocal that I didn't hear much in depth coverage of Obama's credentials to be POTUS.

Woodchip, even your guy thinks it was the Perry campaign. The Democrats are just watching this from the sidelines and not giggling. They would much rather face Cain that one of the thoroughbreds.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardmini ... ment-leak/

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:
Cain made the mistake of lying and changing his story in the press several times. Politicians can never seem to speak the truth the FIRST TIME AROUND. He comes off looking like a lying sleezeball right now. If he'd just come clean right up front, said he was sorry he'd had a lapse of judgement and that he'd paid his dues for that mistake, he'd of come off more honest and human. I can forgive a guy for his basal instincts. But to try and hide or lie about it speaks volumes about character. And to lie about one's questionable actions when there's clearly proof of a monetary settlement about one's said questionable actions is like feeding tabloid chum to the press sharks.

Just where did he Lie. And did you read what the accusations were based on?

"I did not have sex with that woman!" The way he denies or transfers blame to others reminds me of good old Clinton.



It's been downhill since Monday the 31st.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-0 ... alse-.html

And no, we won't find out what the allegations are until the National Restaurant Association allows those women to speak. The settlement conveniently included a clause to keep silent about the matter.

Quit blaming liberals and start placing blame on the person responsible. Cain needs to stand up and "be a man" and own up to the fact that HE screwed up. Kind of like this campaign video of his says about those yella liberals.

Yellow Flowers

To top off this circus, now it appears that he may be one hell of a crook too.

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquar ... 98423.html

Zuruck wrote:Woodchip, even your guy thinks it was the Perry campaign. The Democrats are just watching this from the sidelines and not giggling. They would much rather face Cain that one of the thoroughbreds.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardmini ... ment-leak/

find me a thoroughbred in that field..........

by the way, Cain is toast. His campaign will be deader than a doornail by December. On the plus side, he will have made a couple of hundred thousand dollars in book royalties, since he has been spending campaign donation money to purchase his own books to give away at rallies. Nice.

Well it is an intriguing field of conservative candidates no doubt. Everyone thought Rick Perry was going to tear up the field, then he started talking. And the speech he gave the other day? That might be a Howard Dean type moment for him. Cain's candidacy will fade...the guy seems rather likeable and the least harmless of them all but I don't think he will make it. That leaves Romney...the one candidate that really has the resume and the potential to win...and he can't seem to get above 23%.

For some reason, we're getting a random subscription to Rolling Stone, and there was a fascinating article about Perry in this past issue amusingly titled "The Best Little Whore in Texas." Obviously, Rolling Stone wears its political leanings right on its sleeve, but it was still an amusing read about how the guy has made a political career out of selling out to the highest bidder.

And, the mainstream media refuses to push the ones that have nothing to lose and have kept themselves somewhat separate. I got enough sense to know that whoever gets promoted most, usually wins. Go figure.

flip wrote:And, the mainstream media refuses to push the ones that have nothing to lose and have kept themselves somewhat separate. I got enough sense to know that whoever gets promoted most, usually wins. Go figure.

which ones are you referring to?

Ron Paul in particular. I find it curious that most of the current admin are CFR members and count all the time Ron has in office he still has yet to be invited. Although I've heard him say he would welcome the opportunity. I've learned that if someone disagrees well enough it's better to just exclude them completely, otherwise they continually make an ass of you. Being a realist, I still think Rudy has the best chance of his life in this field. People are realizing now the heading we are on and they are wanting to slow down a bit. A conservative will be elected most likely.

Ron Paul has had a TON of coverage, over several election cycles. Yet, he still only pulls around 5% of the GOP primary vote,
and about the same when you look at the entire spectrum. As for Rudy Giuliani, he would be exposed for the crook he is too quickly to remain viable. I am not at all sure that you are looking at a Conservative wave next year. You simply seem to have an angry electorate, and a growing wave of blowback from workers, many of whom tend toward liberal approaches. Watch Ohio next week, for example. It could turn out to be a huge slapdown in a swing state for a GOP governor who rode the 2010 wave. Now, to be honest, you sort of lose my respect(briefly) with that CFR stuff, as that is just grade-school level conspiracy paranoia. You can do better.......

Put him against a noob like Cain, which I think has a good chance actually, Perry, sincere but unprepared as hell, no confidence in him at all, and Romney a flip flopper, Rudy doesn't look so bad. Obama's gone Slick, get over it.

flip wrote:Put him against a noob like Cain, which I think has a good chance actually, Perry, sincere but unprepared as hell, no confidence in him at all, and Romney a flip flopper, Rudy doesn't look so bad. Obama's gone Slick, get over it.

wanna bet?




I'm serious. I made the offer elsewhere, with one taker. Loser pays $100 to the charity of the winner's choice(legit charities, please). Step up if you care to.

Considering this with the fact you need "party" support. My vote will go to Ron Paul. That sonofabitch has stood his ground the whole time. My vote will go to encourage him to stay the course, although I know he will not be elected .

LOL, well I'm not a betting man, but I will say this, If this populace re-elects Obama, I'm heading to South America somewhere. I'm hoping for a slow down for the next 4 years hopefully.

flip wrote:Considering this with the fact you need "party" support. My vote will go to Ron Paul. That sonofabitch has stood his ground the whole time. My vote will go to encourage him to stay the course, although I know he will not be elected .

noble, but completely impractical politics. Plus, a close examination of Dr. Paul's position might prove him to be the scariest candidate out there, unless you really want to live in a chaotic, uncivilized third world nation. And, it would become one, fast.

flip wrote:LOL, well I'm not a betting man, but I will say this, If this populace re-elects Obama, I'm heading to South America somewhere. I'm hoping for a slow down for the next 4 years hopefully.

http://www.uni.edu/becker/Spanish3.html


hope this helps you!

Lol, I got no delusions. That course has been stayed and made. Ron Paul makes more sense than any of them and is not afraid to stand against the crowd, and that's a damn crowd to stand against. He might scare you Slick, defenseless borders and a collapsed economy scare me more. I learned a long time ago, your no good to anyone else if your weak as hell yourself.

Lol, Latinos are superstitious as hell. Never met one I didn't get along with

flip wrote:Lol, Latinos are superstitious as hell. Never met one I didn't get along with

well, I'm all for cerviche and mojitos, so the Caribbean is where I would head. Don't worry, we;ve had unprotected borders for a couple hundred years and still prevailed by dint of free thinking. The economy worries me, and that is why I still back Obama. He is the only one on the political stage who attempts to focus the nation on the long term picture of economic planning. Of course,it hasn't sunk in, thanks to a 24-hour bogus news cycle and a general public that still doesn't want to put in the work or institute the changes necessary to become a great power again. Still, we could blunder along like England or the like for a quite some time.
At any rate, my family has stuck it out here for 330 some-odd years, and I think we will still be here when my grandchildren have kids. Come up to Eastern Virginia and visit after you relocate. And, bring to guavas and fresh coffee beans with you.

Well, if you are willing to give up everything, to align yourself with one thing, you will do well for awhile.

callmeslick wrote: http://www.uni.edu/becker/Spanish3.html

That website is straight out of 1997.

Cain has crossed the line into sexist jerk territory! All his minions are out there calling into question the sexual morality of his accusers, while calling himself an innocent victim. He's even had the temerity to attack the first accuser, Bialek, a tried and true a tea party member. Talk about throwing your supporters to the wolves. We're right back to the 1950's with this a$$hole! If he really wants to win an election, he really needs to respect the female electorate and quit being a pig. He ain't gonna win it with just the male vote in this day and age either.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/herm ... 14641.html

http://theweek.com/article/index/221220 ... s-accusers

Dangit TC, how are you supposed to know unless you ask. Some women are whores and actually like a spank on the bottom

tunnelcat wrote:Cain has crossed the line into sexist jerk territory! All his minions are out there calling into question the sexual morality of his accusers, while calling himself an innocent victim. He's even had the temerity to attack the first accuser, Bialek, a tried and true a tea party member. Talk about throwing your supporters to the wolves. We're right back to the 1950's with this a$$hole! If he really wants to win an election, he really needs to respect the female electorate and quit being a pig. He ain't gonna win it with just the male vote in this day and age either.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/herm ... 14641.html

http://theweek.com/article/index/221220 ... s-accusers

Any proof that what the accusers say is true?

woodchip wrote:Any proof that what the accusers say is true?

None,