I love a reply like yours. No sarc tag. I counted at least 15 replies. About half saw the sarcasm and humor. About half thought you were serious, and therefore - NUTZ!
Posted on 12/01/2011 7:04:57 PM PST by Nodems2000
Well what does everyone think after the Hannity interview? I've listened carefully to all his interviews and even though I liked Herman very much, I believe he was involved with these women, even if they are scumbags. First, has anyone noticed how he seems to "prey" on women who are vulnerable and bogged down with financial and legal issues? Second, he has said repeatedly "my wife loves me so much" but he's yet to say "I love MY wife so much". Doesn't that sound very egomanical? Third, he said his wife would never tell him not to run. I'm suspecting she wouldn't dare tell him not to run because she's riding the Cain Train too - the Cain Money Train. If you watched her interview she sure didn't seem to be madly in love with him from things she said. And now he's going to "analyze" the phone bills to see if they match up with hers and he and his attorney will do an investigation. When Sean suggested he could get the info to clear himself very easily, such as videotapes in hotels, plane tickets, etc., etc. he suggested Sean wanted him to play detective! Well, sorry Herman, but it would take all of ten minutes to pick up the phone, call the Ritz downtown Atlanta and ask for videotapes on such a date and at such a time! That would end it once and for all. Him and his "analyzing". God help the 3 a.m. phone call - God forbid the red phone goes off for a missle coming our way - by the time he got done analyzing we'd all be bar-b-que!
Absolutely true. My wife had a lesbo roomate once who was an almost pathological whorebag with men. She was a mess.
There was a FR who posted on every Bialek thread that it was physically impossible. After about his twelfth post, I asked if there were any FR members who had not found it impossible. Within twenty minutes we had over two dozen FR members (male and female) who were willing to say it hadn't been impossible to them, then almost all involving the unasked information of year (some with month, and even some with day), make and model car, name of or relationship to the other party, city in the country and location (sometimes which highway or street).
What she accused him of doing is, as I assumed, a fairly common practice for thrill-seekers in cars.
Technically, the lawsuit didn't prove Ginger White was a liar. Ginger White didn't have her day in court. She didn't timely answer the complaint and had a default judgment entered against her.
You could assume it was because White thought she would lose, but we've agreed that unfounded assumptions aren't valid in these Cain matters (or else the two harassment claims settled by the NRA based on Cain's actions would prove cain was a serial sexual harasser). You could assume White's sloppy about meeting deadlines (you don't get a second notice). You could assume the body builder assured her it was going to be dropped.
But there was no case that proved Ginger White a liar. The plaintiff never even presented any evidence.
Neither Cain nor the National Restaurant Association was ever sued. We know this because lawsuits are a matter of public record and are searchable by data base. No article refers to a lawsuit.
Everything refers to two claims based on charges of harassment by Cain being settled by the National Restaurant Association. This means NRA settled with the women before they brought suit or submitted their claims to the EEOC.
It was initially leaked that the claims were settled for $35K and $45K (essentially a year's salary each) and were couched as severance payments (you can call a settlement anything you like; that way you have plausible deniability when you say you've never paid a settlement to settle a harassment claims; we lawyers are conniving scoundrels).
Those two amounts were *way* above the norm for settling a nuisance harassment claim in 1998. Those amounts are way above the norm for settling a nuisance harassment lawsuit in 1998, and lawsuits immediately tag on an extra $10K-$15K in that era (more today).
It was also not an ordinary thing for a CEO to be charged with harassment. Only a small percentage were. And for a CEO to have two claims against him in one year?
FR members have ignored actual studies from 1998 regarding EEOC findings of no justification for harassment claims, the average value of settlements, etc., no matter how often they've been posted.
I was a Cain supporter. You'll find pro-Cain posts in my past and none for another candidate. Do I believe Herman Cain? Nope. The credibility of his fervent supporters on FR - those who ignore Occam's Razor and claim Perry and Rahm are working together, or that Ginger White's phone logs are professional forgeries? If you want to start tossing around phrases like "your credibility is zero!", you might start there.
Actually she said it was an ‘inappropriate affair’ whatever that means.
“Its obvious Cain cheated on his wife...therefore I am switching to Newt.”
You do realize, don’t you, that you are switching from an alleged adulterer to a known adulterer, times two (Newt cheated on both of his first two wives, and is now married to the third one he cheated with, as she is a cheater too). Nice switch. What are you going to do for an encore, you alleged “social” conservatives?
I checked out the enemy tonite (MSNBC) and they are all laughing their verbal *sses off at the hypocrisy of the supposed social conservatives, willing to back Newt, a serial adulterer, and those conservatives who are diehard Cainiacs, willing to back another alleged adulterer. Makes us look real good to our enemies, labelled a bunch of hypocrites, and they are right. If you back either Cain or Newt, you are a conservative hypocrite when it comes to family values. Period.
I say never let a perfectly good catastrophe go wasted.
It's pretty obvious the Democrats are involved in this. They need to be held accountable.
And one more time, the ol'gal from Chicago was the FIRST BROKEN LINK ~ she's the one who lost a paternity suit. That may not sound significant to you, but Maurie Povich would know!
Too much “believing” and “disbelieving” here. Way too much.
Politically I think Cain’s a huckster, based on his performances, especially his responses to interviewers.
But I know nothing about his private conduct or his relationship with his wife.
I must say I was expecting this high-tech lynching, but I was wrong to believe it would be ineffective.
Worse, the high-tech lynching has been effective here on FR. Many have deemed him guilty when there is, so far, no solid proof, nor even semi-solid proof. That stuff is plain mud.
His responses have been clumsy. His admission that his wife was uninformed about this woman, stinks. My opinion of his political integrity does not help me give him any benefit of the doubt. His lawyer initially defended his privacy rather than his purity. An assistant pastor offering a single woman “month-to-month expenses” financial assistance, without mentioning it to his wife for over a decade, most definitely reeks of fire in the vicinity of smoke.
Nevertheless, a smoking gun is not a blue dress.
Conclusion: his supporters fell for his shucky ducky scam, and they fell for his high tech lynching just as readily.
That’s a frightening indication of the state of our informed citizenry in our 236th year of American experiment.
“Your opinion might have more weight if you were not such a Perry-bot.”
Says one of our resident, habitual thread hijackers.
You accuse everyone of being a racist.
Good look in the mirror, clown.
Cain is a playa lova. He is a mack daddy!
Just the ones who really show it. Most of them are Perrybots from Texas. Imagine that.
And one more time, the ol'gal from Chicago was the FIRST BROKEN LINK ~ she's the one who lost a paternity suit. That may not sound significant to you, but Maurie Povich would know!
Actually, I was a loss prevention manager for the largest private employer in the world. Had to investigate many sexual harassment complaints. They were almost always 'he said, she said' so it came down to risk. Did I believe the accused put us at risk again or did I believe the accuser was going to put us at risk again.
You keep wanting to put this on the women and whether they had sex or not. I don't care. My problem is that Cain is a bad risk. He was accused at least twice, that is fact. Whether he did it or not doesn't matter. Add to that a 13 year relationship he had with another woman he met at work and hid it from his wife. He didn't learn anything from the first two accusations, he put himself into a situation where it could happen again. That is also fact because it is happening now. So Cain is either stupid, which disqualifies him from being President, or he is reckless, which also disqualifies him. He wants to be the most powerful man on Earth, you don't give that job to stupid or reckless people.
That does not make the PMG a serial harasser. Nor is Cain.
Besides, this is a campaign organized by David Axelrod.
I would kiss your face if you paid me.
I wouldn’t kiss your face if you paid me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.