Unnamed Cain abuser WORKS IN BARRY's admin!

[mudwhistle]

What I am is a pragmatist.

Pragmatically, the goal is to beat Obama with a real conservative who will stand up for real conservative values.

Cain can't beat Obama. Not with this stuff swirling around him. Even if it is totally untrue and wrong, women - particularly WHITE women- won't vote for him. Not unless he can present rock solid proof ALL of these women are lying.

My position is pretty consistant, actually. I thought Clinton was wrong for doing this kind of thing, and I think Cain is wrong.

Clinton did it and there was proof.

IF Cain did it, then yes, he is wrong.

But there is no proof yet that Cain did it and you have already labelled him as guilty of doing it.

In essence, you made up your mind despite lack of evidence, lack of witnesses...and only based on "hearsay".

I do not believe Cain is the man to represent the GOP based on his lack of experience in Washington.

But that does not mean I support him being labelled as guilty. This is not about who can beat Obama. This is abour the media ensuring a man is considered guilty by the public ONLY becuase they want him to be guilty.

And it is working. And to you that may be OK becuase you want a better candidate....but to me, I shudder to think of how narrow minded we have become and how willing we are to believe what the media tells us.

What was Clinton found guilty of?

Found guilty of?

Technically not guilty.

He pleaded no contest to perjury.

 

[JoeB131]

so you have taken circumstantial evidence and labelled him as guilty.

So what about this scenario.....

A woman did not appreciate being called "honey" bt Cain. He meant no harm by it for he calls the cashier at the supermarket honey, his wife honey, the girl at the 7-11 honey and no one has ever complained to him about it.

But this woman did not like it and complains to HR.

HR takes it to the next level and meets with counsel who says "it willnever stand up in a court of law, but it will cost us well over 100K to defend it....so lets offer her 35K to make it go away...."

Her attorney tells her "look, honey, you have very little to stand on here. You will likely lose in court. They are offering you a nice severance package to go on your merry way and I suggest you take it".

Sher takes it and word gets out that she got 35K for an empty complaint.

So another woman says "I hate this job......for 35K I can take a nice vacation and get a new job when I return.....so she makes the same claim.

The scnario above happens all the time in the business world.

And I again say.....if she was truly troubled by whatever Cain did, why would she settle for 35K?

If she was SO distraught over it and thus felt the need to go public about it 15 years later, why did she accept a mere 35K RIGHT AFTER IT HAPPENED AND IT DEVASTATED HER?

Sorry...it does not add up enough for me to say "the circumstantial evidence is enough to label him as guilty of wrongdoing."

Well, she didn't come forward. Someone at the NRA leaked her name and the details to the politico and someone else published her name on line.

And honestly, this isn't about a guy who calls someone "honey". You don't get to the CEO level without knowing damned well what is appropriate and inappropriate. the guy in the cubicle next to me who makes the inappropriate joke, who I had to slap down hard when he did it, yeah. He can make a mistake like that. CEO's are supposed to know better.

 

[8537]

Clinton did it and there was proof.

IF Cain did it, then yes, he is wrong.

But there is no proof yet that Cain did it and you have already labelled him as guilty of doing it.

In essence, you made up your mind despite lack of evidence, lack of witnesses...and only based on "hearsay".

I do not believe Cain is the man to represent the GOP based on his lack of experience in Washington.

But that does not mean I support him being labelled as guilty. This is not about who can beat Obama. This is abour the media ensuring a man is considered guilty by the public ONLY becuase they want him to be guilty.

And it is working. And to you that may be OK becuase you want a better candidate....but to me, I shudder to think of how narrow minded we have become and how willing we are to believe what the media tells us.

What was Clinton found guilty of?

Nothing.
Never said he was found guilty of anything.

you said "Clinton did it".

 

[Jarhead]

Clinton did it and there was proof.

IF Cain did it, then yes, he is wrong.

But there is no proof yet that Cain did it and you have already labelled him as guilty of doing it.

In essence, you made up your mind despite lack of evidence, lack of witnesses...and only based on "hearsay".

I do not believe Cain is the man to represent the GOP based on his lack of experience in Washington.

But that does not mean I support him being labelled as guilty. This is not about who can beat Obama. This is abour the media ensuring a man is considered guilty by the public ONLY becuase they want him to be guilty.

And it is working. And to you that may be OK becuase you want a better candidate....but to me, I shudder to think of how narrow minded we have become and how willing we are to believe what the media tells us.

The only thing "proven" about Clinton was that he had consensual sex with Monica, who wasn't complaining. everything else was their word against his word. I still believe the women because of the sheer number of them.

I can't work up a lot of sympathy for Cain because I think that he never should have been considered a serious candidate to start with. he should have been swatted down like a fly about 20 ignorant statements back. But he hasn't because the professional politicians that are running are so awful, and we are all kind of sick of professional politicians.

Now, is it unfair he's getting pilloried? Only if they are untrue claims. And frankly, he's acting like he's hiding something. So at best, he's bad at playing a game he went into with eyes open. At worst, he's really a narcissist who thought he could get away with this and still thinks he can.

wasnt there a settlement of 850K with someone?

A number like that far exceeds the cost to debate it in a court of law...so a settlement like that implies the accused of NOT wanting it to go to court for more reasons than monetary reasons.

A 35K settlement implies the exact opposite...it implies that the accuser did not want to go to court for fear of losing.

 

[Truthmatters]

why is it the right cant see the differance between consentual adult sex and Trying to get women to fuck you because your the boss?

 

[8537]

Clinton did it and there was proof.

IF Cain did it, then yes, he is wrong.

But there is no proof yet that Cain did it and you have already labelled him as guilty of doing it.

In essence, you made up your mind despite lack of evidence, lack of witnesses...and only based on "hearsay".

I do not believe Cain is the man to represent the GOP based on his lack of experience in Washington.

But that does not mean I support him being labelled as guilty. This is not about who can beat Obama. This is abour the media ensuring a man is considered guilty by the public ONLY becuase they want him to be guilty.

And it is working. And to you that may be OK becuase you want a better candidate....but to me, I shudder to think of how narrow minded we have become and how willing we are to believe what the media tells us.

What was Clinton found guilty of?

Found guilty of?

Technically not guilty.

He pleaded no contest to perjury.

....and admitted no guilt in the underlying case, the original "Drag a dollar through a trailer park" case that is now being poorly mimicked by the Cain camp.

 

[Jarhead]

What was Clinton found guilty of?

Nothing.
Never said he was found guilty of anything.

you said "Clinton did it".

I was referring to the fact that Clinton DID have an extramarital affair...and there was proof he did.

I was responding to Joe's post Comparing clinton to cain with their "womanizing".

But my saying Clinton did it does not mean he was found guilty of anything....he never went to court with anything....

 

[Jarhead]

why is it the right cant see the differance between consentual adult sex and Trying to get women to fuck you because your the boss?

Asshole.....we can.

Why cant you and your narrow mind see the difference between alleged and proven.

 

[8537]

Clinton did it and there was proof.

IF Cain did it, then yes, he is wrong.

But there is no proof yet that Cain did it and you have already labelled him as guilty of doing it.

In essence, you made up your mind despite lack of evidence, lack of witnesses...and only based on "hearsay".

I do not believe Cain is the man to represent the GOP based on his lack of experience in Washington.

But that does not mean I support him being labelled as guilty. This is not about who can beat Obama. This is abour the media ensuring a man is considered guilty by the public ONLY becuase they want him to be guilty.

And it is working. And to you that may be OK becuase you want a better candidate....but to me, I shudder to think of how narrow minded we have become and how willing we are to believe what the media tells us.

The only thing "proven" about Clinton was that he had consensual sex with Monica, who wasn't complaining. everything else was their word against his word. I still believe the women because of the sheer number of them.

I can't work up a lot of sympathy for Cain because I think that he never should have been considered a serious candidate to start with. he should have been swatted down like a fly about 20 ignorant statements back. But he hasn't because the professional politicians that are running are so awful, and we are all kind of sick of professional politicians.

Now, is it unfair he's getting pilloried? Only if they are untrue claims. And frankly, he's acting like he's hiding something. So at best, he's bad at playing a game he went into with eyes open. At worst, he's really a narcissist who thought he could get away with this and still thinks he can.

wasnt there a settlement of 850K with someone?

That case cost 90 million dollars. Certainly not hard to believe the defense could have run up another 850K at the time.

And he admitted no guilt in that agreement. If Paula Jones was so honest, she would have demanded that, right?

 

[8537]

Nothing.
Never said he was found guilty of anything.

you said "Clinton did it".

I was referring to the fact that Clinton DID have an extramarital affair...and there was proof he did.

I was responding to Joe's post Comparing clinton to cain with their "womanizing".

But my saying Clinton did it does not mean he was found guilty of anything....he never went to court with anything....

Oh, my bad. I see that now.

 

[mudwhistle]

Clinton did it and there was proof.

IF Cain did it, then yes, he is wrong.

But there is no proof yet that Cain did it and you have already labelled him as guilty of doing it.

In essence, you made up your mind despite lack of evidence, lack of witnesses...and only based on "hearsay".

I do not believe Cain is the man to represent the GOP based on his lack of experience in Washington.

But that does not mean I support him being labelled as guilty. This is not about who can beat Obama. This is abour the media ensuring a man is considered guilty by the public ONLY becuase they want him to be guilty.

And it is working. And to you that may be OK becuase you want a better candidate....but to me, I shudder to think of how narrow minded we have become and how willing we are to believe what the media tells us.

The only thing "proven" about Clinton was that he had consensual sex with Monica, who wasn't complaining. everything else was their word against his word. I still believe the women because of the sheer number of them.

I can't work up a lot of sympathy for Cain because I think that he never should have been considered a serious candidate to start with. he should have been swatted down like a fly about 20 ignorant statements back. But he hasn't because the professional politicians that are running are so awful, and we are all kind of sick of professional politicians.

Now, is it unfair he's getting pilloried? Only if they are untrue claims. And frankly, he's acting like he's hiding something. So at best, he's bad at playing a game he went into with eyes open. At worst, he's really a narcissist who thought he could get away with this and still thinks he can.

The sheer number of them is an example of piling on by the organizers of this smear.

They found 3 accusers that were willing to say he did this knowing full well they would never have to go to court over it.

If Cain wants to he can sue the shit out of them for slander. The accusers hoped they wouldn't have to go public. Failing that they probably hoped that the government would pay for their defense. Cain could build a case against them and prove damages against them pretty easily. It's just a matter of getting the right jury. He can also sue Politico for millions right now in a libel suit. However, he doesn't want to get involved in that till after the election, so you won't hear much about that unless he drops out.

 

[8537]

let's be honest, folks:

That Carville line about "Drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park; you never know what you'll find" was pure comedy gold!

 

[Truthmatters]

why is it the right cant see the differance between consentual adult sex and Trying to get women to fuck you because your the boss?

Asshole.....we can.

Why cant you and your narrow mind see the difference between alleged and proven.

there was a witness who worked for Cain saying there were many more witnesses who saw the abuse.

That means nothing to you huh?

 

[mudwhistle]

What was Clinton found guilty of?

Found guilty of?

Technically not guilty.

He pleaded no contest to perjury.

....and admitted no guilt in the underlying case, the original "Drag a dollar through a trailer park" case that is now being poorly mimicked by the Cain camp.

Course, he won't admit to anything, even though he most likely was guilty as shit. It was his word against her's, and because he lied under oath about one thing that tends to cancel out any credibility he would have on the other. Simple logic.

 

[Jarhead]

so you have taken circumstantial evidence and labelled him as guilty.

So what about this scenario.....

A woman did not appreciate being called "honey" bt Cain. He meant no harm by it for he calls the cashier at the supermarket honey, his wife honey, the girl at the 7-11 honey and no one has ever complained to him about it.

But this woman did not like it and complains to HR.

HR takes it to the next level and meets with counsel who says "it willnever stand up in a court of law, but it will cost us well over 100K to defend it....so lets offer her 35K to make it go away...."

Her attorney tells her "look, honey, you have very little to stand on here. You will likely lose in court. They are offering you a nice severance package to go on your merry way and I suggest you take it".

Sher takes it and word gets out that she got 35K for an empty complaint.

So another woman says "I hate this job......for 35K I can take a nice vacation and get a new job when I return.....so she makes the same claim.

The scnario above happens all the time in the business world.

And I again say.....if she was truly troubled by whatever Cain did, why would she settle for 35K?

If she was SO distraught over it and thus felt the need to go public about it 15 years later, why did she accept a mere 35K RIGHT AFTER IT HAPPENED AND IT DEVASTATED HER?

Sorry...it does not add up enough for me to say "the circumstantial evidence is enough to label him as guilty of wrongdoing."

Well, she didn't come forward. Someone at the NRA leaked her name and the details to the politico and someone else published her name on line.

And honestly, this isn't about a guy who calls someone "honey". You don't get to the CEO level without knowing damned well what is appropriate and inappropriate. the guy in the cubicle next to me who makes the inappropriate joke, who I had to slap down hard when he did it, yeah. He can make a mistake like that. CEO's are supposed to know better.

So your complaint about Cain is he dropped the ball as a CEO....not that he is guilty of intentionally sexually harrassing a woman.

And I used "honey"

Maybe she was wearing a new suit and he simply said "you look outstanding in that suit"....or is it no longer proper to compliement co workers.

As a busines polanner and HR solutions professional I can tell you this...

Sexual Harrassment in the workplace does not have any guidelines...it is all based on how the ACCUSER takes what the accused says....

I have seen complaints deemed valid when a superior said to a subordinate who had juyst made a dramtic change in her hair (Went from very long to unusually short)...."I love what you did with your hair"

Yes...it was deemed a valid complaint...and after long discussions it came out that the employee HATED her new haircut and was very sensitive about it...

But the Sr. VP was forced to take sensitivity classes for it anyway......

 

[Jarhead]

why is it the right cant see the differance between consentual adult sex and Trying to get women to fuck you because your the boss?

Asshole.....we can.

Why cant you and your narrow mind see the difference between alleged and proven.

there was a witness who worked for Cain saying there were many more witnesses who saw the abuse.

That means nothing to you huh?

See how that works?

See how the media manipulates your thinking?

CNN says they have an anonymous friend of an anonymous accuser who saw an "un-described" act of sexual harrassment...

And to you that is fact.

 

[mudwhistle]

let's be honest, folks:

That Carville line about "Drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park; you never know what you'll find" was pure comedy gold!

Carville is a regular stupid quote machine.

He must love the taste of foot.

 

[Jarhead]

The only thing "proven" about Clinton was that he had consensual sex with Monica, who wasn't complaining. everything else was their word against his word. I still believe the women because of the sheer number of them.

I can't work up a lot of sympathy for Cain because I think that he never should have been considered a serious candidate to start with. he should have been swatted down like a fly about 20 ignorant statements back. But he hasn't because the professional politicians that are running are so awful, and we are all kind of sick of professional politicians.

Now, is it unfair he's getting pilloried? Only if they are untrue claims. And frankly, he's acting like he's hiding something. So at best, he's bad at playing a game he went into with eyes open. At worst, he's really a narcissist who thought he could get away with this and still thinks he can.

wasnt there a settlement of 850K with someone?

That case cost 90 million dollars. Certainly not hard to believe the defense could have run up another 850K at the time.

And he admitted no guilt in that agreement. If Paula Jones was so honest, she would have demanded that, right?

I agree....

So why cant the masses apply the same logic to the Cain scenario?

Why are the masses on the left declarring him guilty as charged?

 

[mudwhistle]

Asshole.....we can.

Why cant you and your narrow mind see the difference between alleged and proven.

there was a witness who worked for Cain saying there were many more witnesses who saw the abuse.

That means nothing to you huh?

See how that works?

See how the media manipulates your thinking?

CNN says they have an anonymous friend of an anonymous accuser who saw an "un-described" act of sexual harrassment...

And to you that is fact.

Actually the report said the anonymous friend of the anonymous accuser never saw an inappropriate act.......but she sure as shit felt that Cain was capable of something. She just didn't like his attitude, or something to that effect. Ordering two bottles of expensive wine and sticking her with the tab.

The Bastard.


The shit is getting deep folks.

 

[bripat9643]

.... communications director at the Inspector General’s Office of the Treasury Department, a position she has held since last year.

That's hardly working in the Obama Administration. Shall we stick to facts and lay off the hysteria? Just an idea.

Yes, that is working in the Obama Administration, especially since Obama recently issued orders that only die-hard drones would be hired.