Posted on 12/03/2011 6:16:49 AM PST by NautiNurse
In the 15th Century, “Lady Justice” was introduced wearing a blindfold. Her sightlessness was meant to represent objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out without fear or favor, regardless of identity, money, power or weakness. Blind justice and impartiality should be the goal.
[snip]
Suddenly, while Mr. Cain is soaring at the top of the polls, proposing to scrap our three million word tax code for a simpler, fairer, pro-growth 9-9-9 plan (getting rid of the tax code would arguably be the largest transfer of power from the government to the people since the U.S. Constitution was ratified. No wonder the establishment resists such an agent of change) he is besieged by the media, suffering “death of a thousand cuts,” as described by Cain Senior Adviser, Niger Innis.
For six unrelenting weeks, Mr. Cain has been the target of attacks on his character. His accusers have yet to prove anything, yet the man has been judged guilty in the court of public opinion without even a semblance of a fair trial.
[snip]
We the people must demand a more just political process. If someone is going to talk about another person’s character, they must have irrefutable proof and not just their word. The people should demand this and so should the media. A political campaign should address the many troubling issues facing the nation and not have to waste its resources defending meaningless allegations.
We must demand that the media reports on the issues, and let us see the platforms of the candidates. In the face of these attacks, on Mr. Cain and other presidential hopefuls, I’m inclined to find that Tabloid Justice is indeed blind, but far from objective.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I would like to buy one ticket for the Cain Train.
Leaving around 1:30 - ALL ABOARD...
Usually when a politician says he is staying in office or not leaving a race because of a cloud, it’s the first step to actual withdrawal from politics.
The MSM didn’t admit to making the payments. Cain did. All that is left is making a value-judgement about whether the payments were appropriate. And, as you see, there is debate.
I don't need to look up the definition of alleged, or for that matter, acknowledged or documented.
the existence of documentation is irrelevant because he ADMITS doing it.
Do I interpret your meaning correctly as:
Whether a document exists or a document does not exist prior to its discovery, it has no relevance to the matter if in the matter one party alleges something and the other party acknowledges it as true?
Perhaps the reason for all the hedging is because his campaign was informed that more of Cain’s history will be leaked soon. Maybe the first women to allege misconduct backed away because they were told Ginger White was ready to make an appearance.
He said he didn’t tell his wife about Ginger and he did say he had also helped a male friend. Mr. Cain is very wealthy and maybe thought he was too big to fail.
None of us know why Mr. Cain didn't tell his wife any more then you know why he didn't tell her. All we can do is speculate.
But if he was acting in his capacity as a assistant minister or what ever, it isn't anyone's business, including his wife why he gave that woman any money.
Do you want your minister telling everyone he knows the private details of your life with his wife?
That's something I would like to know. How many here would want their minister in their church putting their private business in the streets?
Shame shame you didn't ping me but I think you are talking about my post where I said this from post #101:
When you pay for something, you get something in return. What did Cain receive for alleged 'payment'?
Notice that I used quote marks on the word 'payment' not alleged, calling into question the word PAYMENT. Since we have proof of Cain receiving anything for an alleged PAYMENT, he may not have made a PAYMENT, but may have instead given her money when she needed money. Charity, donation, alms etc. He may have acknowledged giving her money, but so far I haven't read or heard him say that he paid her money as in a payment for something or service in return.
Payments are money owed, like in rent, car payments, utilities etc. So, in conclusion it was an ALLEGED PAYMENT that I was questioning. I suppose its possible that he could have made the payment on her rent if he didn't trust her to use the money for the rent. Doesn't this woman have kids? Maybe he is helping the kids more than he is helping her. Just another possibility.
alleged 'payments' [I didn't notice the apostrophes, earlier]simultaneously implying that the payments did not happen, and if they did, they are "alms" and not payments at all.
Alms are not payments--wrap your mind around that one. LOL
No shame at all, here. I challenged you on your incorrect use of the term, and you didn’t respond. I am under no obligation to ping you every time I discuss it in the future.
See #187
I want to see him come out and announce that he is is NOT dropping out of the race, and that he is filing lawsuits against all persons making such charges, as well as any possible defendant in this matter. He would skyrocket past Newt!
I will give you credit for probably the best attempt at spin on this. But in the end, Cain helped Ms. White with his own money, not church money. Which makes it his wife's business as well.
And as I said earlier, Cain could have defused this by coming clean with his wife before or even when he decided to enter the race. He didn't. No explanation for his failure to plan ahead speaks well of his understanding of what the race to win the GOP nomination would represent.
See #188.
All though misleading, it is correct in that allegations don't cease to exist once they have been corroborated. More properly, it might have read something like this:
"What did Cain receive for alleged this 'payment'?"
or maybe more precisely as:
"What did Cain allegedly receive for this 'payment'?"
Judging from the critical reasoning skills exhibited on this thread, I’ll consider it a victory if Cain refers to “payments,” instead of “alleged payments.”
Fair enough.
I know it isn't supposed to, but that sounds like dirtboy has something going on with the minister's wife! lol
Oh great, now Cain will be called queer, too. /s
It was supposed to say: Do you want your minister telling everyone he knows the private details of your life even with his wife?
Silly me, I left out the word even. LOL
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.