This is the link to the story that broke on the local 6PM news. I watched Fox News Network most of the day. If it was on there, I must have missed it. This was an exclusive interview given to Atlanta's Fox5 reporter Dale Russell.
I saw it on NBC nightly news 6:00pm Central time, that gave em a full hour to get the story around the country. And I'm betting since it was Herman Cain they were ready to "roll tape" before any of us even heard the story. It takes a lot of work to destroy a viable threat to the Left these days.
Originally posted by fierobear: It is not a matter of belief, it is simple logic. If liberals/Democrats neither espouse morality nor act in a moral fashion, they are not moral people. If they believe in morals, but don't practice them, then they are hypocrites.
Curious how the burden of proof is so much higher for some than it is for others...
Looks like your question got cut off, who are you referring to?
Did you read what I wrote? The lady is broke, has sued a few times before for sexual harassment, so she has a jacket. That is why I stated she needs to supply something other than her word. And if it was a 13 year relationship, I will guarantee you there were pictures of them together that she has for safe keeping.
Personally I don't care what letter(s) someone has next to their name, all should be equal.
Looks like your question got cut off, who are you referring to?
Did you read what I wrote? The lady is broke, has sued a few times before for sexual harassment, so she has a jacket. That is why I stated she needs to supply something other than her word. And if it was a 13 year relationship, I will guarantee you there were pictures of them together that she has for safe keeping.
Personally I don't care what letter(s) someone has next to their name, all should be equal.
I completely agree with you. There would be solid evidence if this allegation is true.
However I think there are 1000s of different motivates for people to attack Cain. Even if its 100% false, all they have to do is speculate long enough to get the majority of supporters to move on.
IP: Logged
02:12 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27110 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
I'll bet they are after Cain because he is their worst fear - he would neutralize the race card. You know, the bullshit that Democrats love to spew about "you just hate Obama because he's BLACK!". Get rid of Cain, and they can get back to their favorite play - the race card.
IP: Logged
02:56 AM
rinselberg Member
Posts: 16118 From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA) Registered: Mar 2010
Why would this disqualify Herman Cain, but it didn't disqualify Bill Clinton?
You'll note that I didn't mention any names in my post. I did this for specific reasons. Not only that, but I didn't even mention any crimes, alleged or otherwise.
In less than 60 seconds, Cain made a complete fool of himself trying to say something about this recent development in U.S. foreign policy.
So--is a Cain candidacy the Democrats' worst fear--or their fondest dream?
I still honestly believe he's got early-onset Alzheimer's. His forgetting really important things, like events WRT to Libya (don't forget, conservatives really attacked Obama over our "involvement" in Libya just months ago, so at least Cain should be up to date on Conservative actions of recent vintage) as well as having no knowledge of a woman who he had been confronted by just weeks earlier (If a woman came up to you and confronted you about sexual harassment, you'd remember it a few weeks later, right?), and the list goes on.
He's saying "I don't recall" more than Reagan, and honestly, a person who doesn't recall things that ought to be important to him surely isn't competent to attempt to run this country. Unless, of course, he's just a figurehead, but I'd rather have someone who was educated and capable of independent thought.
Whether you agree with him or not, how can you say that he has no intelligence or education? I'm not going to say that you're stupid, but what you've said makes no sense to me at all.
This is what is pissing me off, the majority of the news on the web are reposting the original story but every single one is leaving out this paragraph
quote
And so she talked. Before our interview, we checked into Ginger White's background. We found she filed a sexual harassment claim against an employer in 2001. That case was settled.
We also found a bankruptcy filing nearly 23 years ago in Kentucky, and a number of eviction notices here in DeKalb County over the past six years. The most recent happened this month.
Ms. White says she has been unemployed, and she is a single mom with two kids struggling to make ends meet.
Same way I see the post I quoted. Everyone makes gaffes. To claim that Cain is uneducated and incapable of independent thought and that Obama is is ridiculous. Was Cain reading from a prompter? What happens when Obama has no prompter?
"I've now been in 57 states—I think I have one left to go.''
During a trip to London’s Westminster Abbey, President Obama signed the guest book and dated it 24 May 2008. Oops. It was 2011.
During the 2008 primary campaign, he explained why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky: "Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.”
“I don’t know what the term is in Austrian” for “wheeling and dealing.” - There is no Austrian language.
''In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died—an entire town destroyed.'' He was only off by 9,988 as the twister killed 12 people.
“The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system.”
“What I was suggesting—you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith,” before Stephanopoulos jumped in to help, saying ''your Christian faith.”
The list goes on and on. No need to bring Biden into it because I don't have that kind of time.
The point is, if you dislike someone, have legit reasons. Don't blame (or make up false reasons) for the same shortcomings that the guy you support has while ignoring the fact that he has them.
[This message has been edited by Gtdhw (edited 11-29-2011).]
The point is, if you dislike someone, have legit reasons. Don't blame (or make up false reasons) for the same shortcomings that the guy you support has while ignoring the fact that he has them.
That seems so unreasonable...Have you never been here before?
Brad
IP: Logged
03:49 PM
dratts Member
Posts: 8373 From: Coeur d' alene Idaho USA Registered: Apr 2001
Exactly, I suspect that when there is that much smoke there might be fire, but I really don't care what he does with his penis. I don't think that he is presidential calibre though by a long shot.
Exactly, I suspect that when there is that much smoke there might be fire, but I really don't care what he does with his penis. I don't think that he is presidential calibre though by a long shot.
Exactly, I suspect that when there is that much smoke there might be fire, but I really don't care what he does with his penis.
Personally if I wanted to get someone off the campaign, I would hire as many possible girls to come out and yell sexual harassment. Specifically I would look for young white attractive girls to do so, ones that may of had multiple chances to work one and one with a candidate. Setting someone up for things like this is extremely easy...
Said that, if he did have an affair with anyone, it does bother me a lot, whether or not I would still vote for him would depend on how its handled when solid evidence comes out.
I take it that you will not be voting for Obama's second term? The guy can do/say nothing without his tele-prompters.
The ideologues continually repeat that mantra. Hey, if a teleprompter helps him to speak well to large audiences I'm all for it. Look at Perry's performance, Cain's performance, and all the other's performances at the debates, for instance. Maybe if Perry'd used a teleprompter, or at least a decent hand-written note, he'd been able to remember the name of that third government division he wants to eliminate. Cain apparently uses the same method of randomly hoping to remember important stuff too.
The whole "teleprompter" deal is just a spurious attack that's unfounded, and meaningless. People keep saying "teleprompter" repeatedly in order to make some sort of insult out of it, and to some extent they succeeded. And that's a pretty sad commentary on the quality of the folks who keep repeating the mantra.
Whether you like it or not, Barack Obama is an articulate, well-educated, self-made millionare who is also a published author (before he ran for any office). BTW, he graduated from Harvard with top grades, the same college Bush graduated from (barely).
But you, of course, only see the teleprompter, and that's enough to cause you to disregard everything else. That's an incredibly shallow way of looking at things, though I don't want to think I'm calling you shallow. I'm just observing your actions, not you personally.
And yes, I'll vote for him again, in a heartbeat, because the competition is, frankly, apparently semi-literate and uninformed on every aspect of running a nation and interacting as a nation with the rest of the world. Gingrich is the only exception, but he's still got issues, specifically his willingness to support yet another amnesty for illegals.
IP: Logged
06:52 PM
carnut122 Member
Posts: 9122 From: Waleska, GA, USA Registered: Jan 2004
I saw it on NBC nightly news 6:00pm Central time, that gave em a full hour to get the story around the country. And I'm betting since it was Herman Cain they were ready to "roll tape" before any of us even heard the story. It takes a lot of work to destroy a viable threat to the Left these days.
Brad
4 women? If it's true, it sounds like self-destruction to me (no help needed from the left, middle or right). The last I heard, Cain was accusing Perry's or Romny's people of leaking the sexual harassment women. I'm thinking if this wasn't true, wouldn't Cain be suing for libel? I'm just wondering why a guy with that many skeletons in his closet would even bother to run.
IP: Logged
07:46 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27110 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by JazzMan: The ideologues continually repeat that mantra.
ROFL...TOTALLY unlike you with Bush, Republicans, and so on? Which you follow up with THIS:
quote
And yes, I'll vote for him again, in a heartbeat, because the competition is, frankly, apparently semi-literate and uninformed on every aspect of running a nation and interacting as a nation with the rest of the world.
No mantra there, nope. LOL
quote
BTW, he graduated from Harvard with top grades, the same college Bush graduated from (barely).
How would we know that? It doesn't appear that his college records have ever been released. But Rick Perry's were mysteriously released. Hmmmm.
President Obama's slow ride down Gallup's daily presidential job approval index has finally passed below Jimmy Carter, earning Obama the worst job approval rating of any president at this stage of his term in modern political history.
Since March, Obama's job approval rating has hovered above Carter's, considered among the 20th century's worst presidents, but today Obama's punctured Carter's dismal job approval line. On their comparison chart, Gallup put Obama's job approval rating at 43 percent compared to Carter's 51 percent.
Back in 1979, Carter was far below Obama until the Iran hostage crisis, eerily being duplicated in Tehran today with Iranian protesters storming the British embassy. The early days of the crisis helped Carter's ratings, though his failure to win the release of captured Americans, coupled with a bad economy, led to his defeat by Ronald Reagan in 1980.
According to Gallup, here are the job approval numbers for other presidents at this stage of their terms, a year before the re-election campaign:
-- Harry S. Truman: 54 percent.
-- Dwight Eisenhower: 78 percent.
-- Lyndon B. Johnson: 44 percent.
-- Richard M. Nixon: 50 percent.
-- Ronald Reagan: 54 percent.
-- George H.W. Bush: 52 percent.
-- Bill Clinton: 51 percent.
-- George W. Bush: 55 percent.
What's more, Gallup finds that Obama's overall job approval rating so far has averaged 49 percent. Only three former presidents have had a worse average rating at this stage: Carter, Ford, and Harry S. Truman. Only Truman won re-election in an anti-Congress campaign that Obama's team is using as a model.
Many pundits believe that job approval ratings are the key number to look at when determining if a president will win re-election. Generally, they feel that a president should be higher than 47 percent to win re-election.
Obama's troubles have revived talk in Democratic circles that Vice President Joe Biden should be replaced by the politically popular Hillary Clinton. She plans to leave as secretary of state at the end of Obama's term no matter what happens in the re-election.
A key Democratic source said that Clinton could help revive the Democratic base and bring in Clinton backers, with whom the administration has had a cool relationship. Clinton has repeatedly rejected talk of her swapping roles with Biden, but Democratic operatives eager to keep the president in office believe that she would be the key to winning educated white voters and liberals upset with the administration's actions.
Originally posted by JazzMan: But you, of course, only see the teleprompter, and that's enough to cause you to disregard everything else. That's an incredibly shallow way of looking at things, though I don't want to think I'm calling you shallow. I'm just observing your actions, not you personally.
And yes, I'll vote for him again, in a heartbeat, because the competition is, frankly, apparently semi-literate and uninformed on every aspect of running a nation and interacting as a nation with the rest of the world. Gingrich is the only exception, but he's still got issues, specifically his willingness to support yet another amnesty for illegals.
1) The teleprompter could be the least of my worries with this guy. There is way too much "everything else" to even come close to disregarding. You are the one who said you wanted someone capable of "independent thought" and slammed the competition for not having it. I just pointed out your hypocrisy (which you blew right over and ignored).
2) Amnesty? lol. So does Obama, only more so. Yet you will vote for him again "in a heartbeat". So once again, the other guy is "wrong" and unelectable because of his stance on an issue, but your guy is "right" and gets your vote even though their position is the same on said issue.
That's twice on 1 page, of 1 thread, that you've contradicted yourself. I'm not sure that there is anything else for one to say other than
[This message has been edited by Gtdhw (edited 11-30-2011).]
IP: Logged
11:48 AM
dratts Member
Posts: 8373 From: Coeur d' alene Idaho USA Registered: Apr 2001
I didn't vote for obama and I've been hopefully waiting to see how he turns out. The one question I think about that will never be answered is what would his administration have been like if he had not taken over a train wreck?
I didn't vote for obama and I've been hopefully waiting to see how he turns out. The one question I think about that will never be answered is what would his administration have been like if he had not taken over a train wreck?
I am beginning to think the GOP doesn't want to take the presidency in 2012. Why take over the train wreck now. Let Obama take the heat and then pick it up when it's better. Whoever gets in is not going to have the impact people are expecting.
IP: Logged
07:27 PM
carnut122 Member
Posts: 9122 From: Waleska, GA, USA Registered: Jan 2004
I am beginning to think the GOP doesn't want to take the presidency in 2012. Why take over the train wreck now. Let Obama take the heat and then pick it up when it's better. Whoever gets in is not going to have the impact people are expecting.
There are still a lot of lobbyists' dollars on that train; otherwise, what you said makes a lot of sense.
IP: Logged
09:47 PM
dratts Member
Posts: 8373 From: Coeur d' alene Idaho USA Registered: Apr 2001
I never thought of that. Still if they pull every obstructionist tactic they can to stall any recovery I think that the electorate will remember. Not that every thing obamas administration is trying is right.
IP: Logged
10:21 PM
Uaana Member
Posts: 6570 From: Robbinsdale MN US Registered: Dec 1999
Whether you like it or not, Barack Obama is an articulate, well-educated, self-made millionare who is also a published author (before he ran for any office). BTW, he graduated from Harvard with top grades, the same college Bush graduated from (barely).
Sorry.. Just gotta ask.. Millionaire from what? He was a community organizer with some help from Bill Ayers.. What has he done to actually "earn" a million plus? Do you want anyone to really dig into Michelle's position that earned her 6 figures for doing nothing? Rezko property deal?
Yes he speaks well.. I was interested during his DNC speech in 06.
Grades? What grades? Can you produce one document and or article that he ever published? Sorry no birther crap.. but please show me his grades.. You were able to produce false documents about Bush written on a modern computer .. but can't come up with one transcript from his college tenure where he was the Ed in Chief?\
Too much.. ok.. fine.. You've found every woman Newt, Cain and Romeny have ever spoken too.. Who did Obama date hang around with in HS, College etc?
I won't even go into his association with Ayers, and Wright.. you deem that irrelevant..
Now tell me who's got the blinders on..
IP: Logged
10:42 PM
Uaana Member
Posts: 6570 From: Robbinsdale MN US Registered: Dec 1999
I never thought of that. Still if they pull every obstructionist tactic they can to stall any recovery I think that the electorate will remember. Not that every thing obamas administration is trying is right.
Talk about controlling the media.. "Obstructionist tactic".. in the real world it's called.. Stopping these clowns from spending even more and driving up more debt.
IP: Logged
10:45 PM
PFF
System Bot
dratts Member
Posts: 8373 From: Coeur d' alene Idaho USA Registered: Apr 2001
Originally posted by JazzMan: The whole "teleprompter" deal is just a spurious attack that's unfounded, and meaningless. People keep saying "teleprompter" repeatedly in order to make some sort of insult out of it, and to some extent they succeeded. And that's a pretty sad commentary on the quality of the folks who keep repeating the mantra.
Whether you like it or not, Barack Obama is an articulate, well-educated, self-made millionare who is also a published author (before he ran for any office). BTW, he graduated from Harvard with top grades, the same college Bush graduated from (barely).
If we said his zhit stink, you would also say it was a spurious attack, . Your reply is spurious. People who keep pointing out the teleprompter/Obama relation are just as calculating as Obama is in using it. He is no more articulate than I am. His speeches are written, calculated for content. His use of multiple teleprompters is also calculated to make him appear articulate. He is not a self made millionaire. He has never had a job. How could you know he graduated from Harvard with top grades ? He won't release his transcripts. He was groomed for his position.
IP: Logged
08:44 AM
dratts Member
Posts: 8373 From: Coeur d' alene Idaho USA Registered: Apr 2001
They already are. The numbers have been posted. What happens when the "wealthy" aren't enough to pay the bill? Then what?
The wealthy already AREN'T enough to pay the bill. Even if the government took ALL their money it wouldn't solve the problem. The country is in some real **** right now and it's going to take everyone lifting according to their abilities to solve our situation if we even can. I think that we are on a downward spiral and we probably will never attain what we had in the past, but let's minimize the pain especially for those less fortunate. The wealthy seem to have been exempt and have even prospered during this transitional period. Something is wrong when the poorest among us have to bear the burden disproportionately.
The wealthy already AREN'T enough to pay the bill. Even if the government took ALL their money it wouldn't solve the problem. The country is in some real **** right now and it's going to take everyone lifting according to their abilities to solve our situation if we even can. I think that we are on a downward spiral and we probably will never attain what we had in the past, but let's minimize the pain especially for those less fortunate. The wealthy seem to have been exempt and have even prospered during this transitional period. Something is wrong when the poorest among us have to bear the burden disproportionately.
The rich (1%) pay 50% of all the taxes in this country, how/why do you consider that "exempt"? The lower 47% pay no taxes, how is that "bearing the burden" of anything but a free ride on the backs of the rich? Then these same people complain that 50% isn't enough of the riches "fair share"? Really? I do agree, however, that something is very, very wrong when things are this "disproportionate". Which is going to help fix our problems faster, the top 1% paying even more than 50%, or the lower 47% paying something/anything into the system? You know, their "fair share"?
[This message has been edited by Gtdhw (edited 12-01-2011).]
IP: Logged
12:40 PM
dratts Member
Posts: 8373 From: Coeur d' alene Idaho USA Registered: Apr 2001
I just don't think that it's the rich that are hurting right now regardless of how much they're paying. They're doing just fine. In fact they are the only ones doing just fine. In fact just fine is an understatement. AGAIN, we're not going to solve our problems by soaking the rich. We have some huge problems here. We ALL need to do what we can. I always seem to miss all the breaks. No deductions, pay the full tax rate, and now that they're talking payroll tax that doesn't help me either, I'm retired. I pay a higher rate than rich people. I don't mind helping out those less fortunate than me even though I have less ability to do that than the wealthy people do. I just don't see why they should be doing better while he rest of us are on a downhill slide. I don't think it's because they work harder. The poor people are going to bear a burden with the cuts. Spending cuts are going to happen. They will feel it whether they are paying big taxes or not. Tough times. The cuts are only going to affect the poorest. Again, the rich are doing better than ever in a time of sacrifice by the rest of us. What is fair about that? AW screw it! I can't get anyone to see any part of my point! Poor rich people. I feel so sorry for them.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 12-01-2011).]
IP: Logged
01:56 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by Gtdhw: The rich (1%) pay 50% of all the taxes in this country, how/why do you consider that "exempt"? The lower 47% pay no taxes, how is that "bearing the burden" of anything but a free ride on the backs of the rich? Then these same people complain that 50% isn't enough of the riches "fair share"? Really? I do agree, however, that something is very, very wrong when things are this "disproportionate". Which is going to help fix our problems faster, the top 1% paying even more than 50%, or the lower 47% paying something/anything into the system? You know, their "fair share"?
it is actually very simple: the more you have - the more you need the g'ment to keep what you have. and - the more you have used the system in place to get where you are. go to Somolia if you need examples of how/why. try getting anywhere with no backing of contracts. no enforcement of ownership. no system to handle disagreements. WTF does a "poor" person need with ANY of this? the majority of Tax Dollars go to defend rich peoples wealth & property. they would have no success without the g'ment. NONE. they would be quickly stripped & picked clean. Like a bunch spoiled babies who dont know what Daddy actually provides for them.
I would expect most "poor people" have NO actual "positive" assetts to defend, and all "claims" are against them, and not for them. most would LOVE to see enforcement of contracts (like mortgages) become worthless papers.
So - yes - the more you have - the more you have used the g'ment, and the more you need the g'ment.
it is actually very simple: 1) the more you have - the more you need the g'ment to keep what you have. and - the more you have used the system in place to get where you are. go to Somolia if you need examples of how/why. try getting anywhere with no backing of contracts. no enforcement of ownership. no system to handle disagreements. 2) WTF does a "poor" person need with ANY of this? 3) the majority of Tax Dollars go to defend rich peoples wealth & property. they would have no success without the g'ment. NONE. they would be quickly stripped & picked clean. 4) Like a bunch spoiled babies who dont know what Daddy actually provides for them.
I would expect most "poor people" have NO actual "positive" assetts to defend, and all "claims" are against them, and not for them. most would LOVE to see enforcement of contracts (like mortgages) become worthless papers.
So - yes - the more you have - the more you have used the g'ment, and the more you need the g'ment.
1) 50% > 0%
2) Entitlement programs are free and not used by the poor? Wow.
3) Link please?
4) Did you just refer to the government as "Daddy providing"?
No sense in replying to the rest based upon #4.
[This message has been edited by Gtdhw (edited 12-01-2011).]
IP: Logged
02:42 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
2) Entitlement programs are free and not used by the poor? Wow.
3) Link please?
4) Did you just refer to the government as "Daddy providing"?
1> not sure what this means 2> no - and I do agree there needs some fixin there as well. but - in the scale of the monies collected in taxes - this is a miniscule # 3> look at any US Gment budget 4> call it what you want. but the cry babies have apparantly forgotten what g'ment actually provides, and how screwed they'd be without it.
. Your reply is spurious.
