Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,272
- 1,283
- Banned
- #41
He said they were unfounded claims
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
WHAT "kind" of things, dipshit?
YOU, as always, are presuming guilt.
What if the entire set of allegations was horseshit from jump street, you mental midget?
THESE kind of things would get "noticed" by a variety of individuals connected to the complainants, their lawyers/law firms and a number of individuals within the hierarchy of the Association and it's lawyers' firms(s).
If you dont think this is anger then you are insane
Wrong, dipshit.
It is not "anger."
It was, however, a compact refutation of the stupid shit you had just posted.
Whether you recognize the truth of what I just posted or not, you are magnificently stupid and dishonest.
He said they were unfounded claims
Other than Cains claim of we paid her off so now she can't speak and insinuating that payoff means he gets to claim the charges are baseless.....we just don't know
She was paid $35k to go away. If she talks, she may have to give back the $35k. That is not too much money and I imagine many will line up to pay the $35k just to hear her side
Cain has to be careful, he is digging a hole that will cave in on him if he is lying
2 months severance is $35k???
What position did the woman hold? That's a $210,000 a year job.
these kind of things get noticed in an office by people who signed NO agreement to be silent
WHAT "kind" of things, dipshit?
YOU, as always, are presuming guilt.
What if the entire set of allegations was horseshit from jump street, you mental midget?
THESE kind of things would get "noticed" by a variety of individuals connected to the complainants, their lawyers/law firms and a number of individuals within the hierarchy of the Association and it's lawyers' firms(s).
If you dont think this is anger then you are insane
Wrong, dipshit.
It is not "anger."
It was, however, a compact refutation of the stupid shit you had just posted.
Whether you recognize the truth of what I just posted or not, you are magnificently stupid and dishonest.
How is pointing out that other employees were aware of the conflict being untruthful?
Let's offer an explanation entirely as well founded as the liberal media's speculation that Mr. Cain "must have done something."
Let's say that when he was President of the Restaurant Association, some employees were involved in perfectly civil and polite and non-sexist non-harassing conversations with Mr. Cain. Then, let's say that either because they were dishonest and manipulative OR because they are idiots, they misconstrued some non-sexual gesture and non-sexual banter as some kind of sex-based employer/employee harassment. And let's say that for any number of reasons, they pursued this fantasy-based "claim."
The Association COULD have chosen to fight it in some EEOC hearing or in Court, perhaps. But that would involve lots of money for lawyers even if they were to prevail AND lots of time of numerous employees doing very non job related things on the time of the Association. So, they did the bean counter thing and elected a path of less resistance and greater cost efficiency. They worked out a "settlement" by which neither side admitted any 'guilt" and both sides got bound by confidentiality.
MAYBE Mr. Cain was made aware of all of this back at the time or maybe he wasn't required to know the details of such bullshit. IF he had been advised, maybe he never paid it very much attention (knowing that it was horse shit from day one). And then, over time, he forgot the few details he may have known over this inconsequential crap.
Now, lo and behold, he has the audacity to run for President. And SOMEBODY who was knowledgeable about the settlements and the sordid allegations of so many years ago "leaked" it to either a GOP opposition candidate OR to a couple of highly impressionable and gullible would-be "REPORTERS." Either way, the "story" gets smeared all over the news JUST around the time that Mr. Cain has charged into the most recent polling leads in the GOP field.
Could that be what happened? I dunno. But that speculation is JUST as well-founded as the rampant speculation I see from the Cain detractors and the "objective" main stream "news" reports.
He said they were unfounded claims
This morning it was reported that the woman received a years pay as severance and that was $35,0000. Cain himself said five figures which is $10k plus.
This may very well be what really happened.
Just as John Edwards, Gary Harts and Anthony Wieners initial claims may have been true. But the free press has a way of digging at a story until more facts come out. They will keep at it until Cain confesses what happened or it turns out to be a non-story. That is the way these things usually play out
Right now, we just don't know
If Cains version of events are true, this will be an old story by next week. But if there is more there and Cain has been lying......it will be much worse for him
This may very well be what really happened.
Just as John Edwards, Gary Harts and Anthony Wieners initial claims may have been true. But the free press has a way of digging at a story until more facts come out. They will keep at it until Cain confesses what happened or it turns out to be a non-story. That is the way these things usually play out
Right now, we just don't know
If Cains version of events are true, this will be an old story by next week. But if there is more there and Cain has been lying......it will be much worse for him
All side know that there is virtually no chance that the story is true, the question is how effective the smear by the democrats press will be?
Let's offer an explanation entirely as well founded as the liberal media's speculation that Mr. Cain "must have done something."
Let's say that when he was President of the Restaurant Association, some employees were involved in perfectly civil and polite and non-sexist non-harassing conversations with Mr. Cain. Then, let's say that either because they were dishonest and manipulative OR because they are idiots, they misconstrued some non-sexual gesture and non-sexual banter as some kind of sex-based employer/employee harassment. And let's say that for any number of reasons, they pursued this fantasy-based "claim."
The Association COULD have chosen to fight it in some EEOC hearing or in Court, perhaps. But that would involve lots of money for lawyers even if they were to prevail AND lots of time of numerous employees doing very non job related things on the time of the Association. So, they did the bean counter thing and elected a path of less resistance and greater cost efficiency. They worked out a "settlement" by which neither side admitted any 'guilt" and both sides got bound by confidentiality.
MAYBE Mr. Cain was made aware of all of this back at the time or maybe he wasn't required to know the details of such bullshit. IF he had been advised, maybe he never paid it very much attention (knowing that it was horse shit from day one). And then, over time, he forgot the few details he may have known over this inconsequential crap.
Now, lo and behold, he has the audacity to run for President. And SOMEBODY who was knowledgeable about the settlements and the sordid allegations of so many years ago "leaked" it to either a GOP opposition candidate OR to a couple of highly impressionable and gullible would-be "REPORTERS." Either way, the "story" gets smeared all over the news JUST around the time that Mr. Cain has charged into the most recent polling leads in the GOP field.
Could that be what happened? I dunno. But that speculation is JUST as well-founded as the rampant speculation I see from the Cain detractors and the "objective" main stream "news" reports.
This may very well be what really happened.
Just as John Edwards, Gary Harts and Anthony Wieners initial claims may have been true. But the free press has a way of digging at a story until more facts come out. They will keep at it until Cain confesses what happened or it turns out to be a non-story. That is the way these things usually play out
Right now, we just don't know
If Cains version of events are true, this will be an old story by next week. But if there is more there and Cain has been lying......it will be much worse for him
Incidentally, the introduction of LOSER PAYS would decrease the frequency of frivolous lawsuits overnight.
August 19, 2009
"Its really just a distraction, said Tom Baker, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and author of The Medical Malpractice Myth. If you were to eliminate medical malpractice liability, even forgetting the negative consequences that would have for safety, accountability, and responsiveness, maybe wed be talking about 1.5 percent of health care costs. So were not talking about real money. Its small relative to the out-of-control cost of health care.
He said they were unfounded claims
So?
Saying that the claims are false isn't talking about them.
I'm sure the claims are unfounded, 99% of sexual harassment claims are.
Wrong, dipshit.
It is not "anger."
It was, however, a compact refutation of the stupid shit you had just posted.
Whether you recognize the truth of what I just posted or not, you are magnificently stupid and dishonest.
How is pointing out that other employees were aware of the conflict being untruthful?
You presume, shithead, that there ever was any "conflict" for anybody to BE aware of.
A claim made by a woman or two is not the same thing as there ever having BEEN any actual "conflict," you simpleton.
Why not just acknowledge that YOU presume that there "must be" some "truth" to the allegations?
Obviously, that's what you presume. And it is (whether you are smart enough to realize it or not) a suppressed premise in almost all of your churlish dopey posts on this "topic."
I wasn't there so I cannot say exactly what transpired. Back in the 90s, sexual harassment charges were commonplace. It was also commonplace for companies to pay frivolous lawsuits out of court rather than pay lawyers hundreds of thousands of dollar to defend frivolous lawsuits. It did not matter that the suit had no basis. All it took then (and still now) to file a law suit was a filing fee and a statement of the claim. Anyone could (and still can) accuse anyone else of anything with or without cause. Many did it for no reason other than to protect their own job and/or to extort money from the company.The lawyer for one of the accused Cain harrassment suit says Cain violated the confidentiality first...
Hmmmm how did Politico learn of the story??
Supposedly sealed records,etc.....
I don't know and just curious if the rest of you more expert then I in this would know how would Politico get the story and the names?
If this was public record then why the confidentiality agreements?
http://www.timesonline.com/news/loca...d99374672.html
The fact that Cain's employer paid off the accuser's lawyers for a frivolous lawsuit has no proof in it that the accusations were valid.
It is said that Billy Graham refused to ride in an elevator with women he did not know for fear of being accused of saying or doing something he had not done.
Other than Cains claim of we paid her off so now she can't speak and insinuating that payoff means he gets to claim the charges are baseless.....we just don't know
She was paid $35k to go away. If she talks, she may have to give back the $35k. That is not too much money and I imagine many will line up to pay the $35k just to hear her side
Cain has to be careful, he is digging a hole that will cave in on him if he is lying
All side know that there is virtually no chance that the story is true, the question is how effective the smear by the democrats press will be?
His campaign donations have gone up notably
How is pointing out that other employees were aware of the conflict being untruthful?
You presume, shithead, that there ever was any "conflict" for anybody to BE aware of.
A claim made by a woman or two is not the same thing as there ever having BEEN any actual "conflict," you simpleton.
Why not just acknowledge that YOU presume that there "must be" some "truth" to the allegations?
Obviously, that's what you presume. And it is (whether you are smart enough to realize it or not) a suppressed premise in almost all of your churlish dopey posts on this "topic."
I presumed NOTHING, there was a case and it was settled.
I claimed NO SIDE but merely stated the fact that other employees were aware of something going on.
They could have been who told the news.
There is not one letter in that statement that lays blame on ANYONE.
You are insane
All side know that there is virtually no chance that the story is true, the question is how effective the smear by the democrats press will be?
His campaign donations have gone up notably
...because of RACECARD fundraising like this:
“Don’t let the left ‘lynch’ another black conservative."
Cain PAC accuses left of 'high-tech lynching' in fundraising letter - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room