Herman Cain is a pretty smart "dumb fuck". And again: insults are not facts. It is disturbing that you and others openly endorse this unfounded slander. ALLEGATIONS THAT WOULD BE BELOW PUBLIC DISCUSSION IF MADE AGAINST A DEMOCRAT!
As I've said repeatedly, if you want to criticize Herman Cain for being weak on foreign policy, or on other actual issues, fair enough. And I've already agreed with you on that. But to leap on these unfounded sexual allegations is both malicious and not an equal standard.
He's the one hiding behind it being a relationship based on consent. I never had a problem with people calling Wiener out for being a sack of shit. As I said, Cain's own defense buries him more than anything that woman said.
I don't buy that.
The media took several days (until the evidence became undeniable) before they ever laid a glove on Weiner. I devoted a topic to it!
Whereas the (liberal) media leaped on allegations toward Herman Cain. They (and you) are eager to destroy the man with the most viciouss --and unfounded-- allegations.
AGAIN: disqualify him on the issues, okay, that I've already agreed with (on that point I believe Ron Paul has likewise disqualified himself, on Iran policy). But to eagerly trash him on unfounded allegations, that will destroy him personally, way beyond the end of his candidacy. Based on nothing at this point. I think he is inexperienced, and just doesn't know how to respond. If he is innocent but gives the issue too much response, his campaign can be damaged further, despite his innocence. He is trying to remain politically viable.
Compare this to Clarence Thomas, who in Oct 1991 was in tears at the pain the allegations had caused him and his family. I admire Herman Cain for being able to take it in stride and keep going.
I accept the facts when revealed, whatever they are. But I'm not eager to condemn a very accomplished and decent guy. Who has brought several large companies back from the edge of bankruptcy. Who has a mathematics degree. Who was the leading front-runner for president until a few weeeks ago. He may not be presidential material, but he is certainly worthy of better than dismissal as a "dumb fuck". And that kind of personal attack smacks of partisan bias.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
I'd agree that Cain loses points for not addressing the allegations more directly sooner.
But I've never seen a politician get shot at anonymously with no clear details in this manner before. The one lady who finally revealed herself with Gloria Allred as her attorney is not credible on many levels, and the others won't reveal themselves beyond vague allegations. And I think I'm typical of many: I resent the way Herman Cain is being shot at, the level of coverage the (liberal) media is giving the allegations, when there is no substantiation of the lurid allegations. ("He reached his hand up my dress for my genitals, AND he pulled my head down toward his crotch". Does that sound credible?)
I never thought Herman Cain had a real chance of becoming the nominee, because while he has economic experience as a businessman, I don't think he understands Washington politics well enough, and his foreign policy knowledge is self-admittedly non-existent.
But I like the guy, and have enjoyed his rise in the polls, however long it lasts.
Pending further evidence, I don't buy the sexual allegations.
And I saw a report that compared coverage of Herman Cain to allegations against coverage of Rep. Weiner, and coverage of Bill Clinton's multiple accusers (that relatively speaking, got only a fraction of the coverage given to Herman Cain's accusers, even though there is far less evidence of Herman Cain's doing anything wrong).
Granted, the allegations are believed to have been sourced to a Cain advisor who defected to the Perry campaign. But it is Politico and the rest of the liberal media who are exploiting the allegations for maximum coverage with no credible evidence. As they clearly --based on past examples (Weiner, Clinton)-- would not have done with a Democrat.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
I'm not the only one to post in large type in the recent past. Take a long look at Prometheus' posts (cut-and pasted to infinity). It would be more credible if you held him to the same standard. I believe he was the "moron" who initiated it.
Ah, so you're not modeling yourself after whomod, you're modeling yourself after Pro. I don't know what the fuck you two are fighting about but if your current debate strategy is "be more like him" then it's clear that he's won.
Quote:
If it annoys you, that pleases me to no end.
I dare you to try to say that out loud and not sound like a child molester.
I'm not the only one to post in large type in the recent past. Take a long look at Prometheus' posts (cut-and pasted to infinity). It would be more credible if you held him to the same standard. I believe he was the "moron" who initiated it.
Ah, so you're not modeling yourself after whomod, you're modeling yourself after Pro. I don't know what the fuck you two are fighting about but if your current debate strategy is "be more like him" then it's clear that he's won.
Again: Then you really ought to hold Pro to the same standard, and count how many times he's paraphrased me to throw my own arguments back at me. And weak paraphrases on his part, at that.
Originally Posted By: Mxy
Originally Posted By: WB
If it annoys you, that pleases me to no end.
I dare you to try to say that out loud and not sound like a child molester.
You just said it. And yes, it does make you sound like a child molester.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Again: Then you really ought to hold Pro to the same standard, and count how many times he's paraphrased me to throw my own arguments back at me. And weak paraphrases on his part, at that.
So your argument is "I'm not an idiot because I'm repeating what Pro does (who is an idiot)"? That makes you an even bigger idiot. You are an idiot squared.
I'm more than willing to let Pro know when I think he's being stupid: we recently had a lengthy debate in the other forum. However, I'm not reading any of that Occupy stuff because I don't even care, so I don't know if he's being an idiot too or if it's just you. That makes no difference, though. It doesn't matter if you got your idiocy from Michael Jordan, Jesus Christ or the lead singer from the band Foreigner, because I'm not talking to any of them right now. I'm talking to you, an adult who apparently believes repeating the stupid things others do means you're not stupid.
Originally Posted By: WB
You just said it. And yes, it does make you sound like a child molester.
"It" being the phrase "If it annoys you, that pleases me to no end." I just want the record to show that Wonder Boy admits having a tendency to phrase things in the way a rapist would. That's always been the case, but recent revelations make it even creepier.
This isn't really a surprise. It was really dumb of Cain to keep pushing once the women started coming out.
I can think of at least one guy who kept pushing after a series of bimbo eruptions and did quite well in a couple of elections:
... Cain's gaffes and inexperience, especially about foreign policy, are the real problem with him, not a series of allegations about his personal life.
What your forgetting or leaving out is that Clinton only had Jennifer Flowers claiming they had an affair while he was in the primaries. Cain hasn't even gotten to a primary yet and we've already have a handful.
As for Cain's other problems, after W I wouldn't bet on any of that actually stopping him.
There were several allegations that Bill Clinton had other affairs, while he was still campaigning. But since no one else came forward to show themselves as Gennifer Flowers did, the (liberal) media treated them as if they did not exist. ...
The problem for Cain is that he has had several "Gennifer Flowers" come forward. Where has the media treated him differently? In fact I wasn't aware of his mistress till she came forward but it seems that at least some of the press was aware of it. Cain's mistress didn't become news till she came forward though.
I think a more apt comparison is between Cain and John Edwards in 2008.
Edwards was, like Cain, one of the top polling candidates. But in Edwards' case, only the National Enquirer paid much attention to the affair (which resulted in a child out of wedlock and, ultimately, Edwards being indicted for misusing campaign funds).
The press all but buried the Edwards story until after he was out of the running for president. They jumped on the Cain story while he was on top.
My vote is sacred. And that's exactly why I'll hold my nose and vote as many times as it takes to alleviate any further damage done to the country. Whining about how none of the candidates are good enough is all well and fine, but it doesn't really amount to anything when you consider someone is going to get elected with or without your approval. Thus, you triangulate.
A. All you care about is someone beating Obama. That in and of itself makes you pathetic.
B. The sentence should be something along the lines of "the mob rage of which you are, apparently, very fond.
C. Holding your nose to vote tells me very clearly that you are a completely liar when it comes to saying you hold your vote sacred. Your own paragraph exposes you as a lying sack of shit that really only votes based on who you think will cause the least damage. Hence, the fact that you hold your fucking nose to do it. You are exactly what they want in a voter. Enjoy the decline because you continue to vote for it.
So your argument is "I'm not an idiot because I'm repeating what Pro does (who is an idiot)"? That makes you an even bigger idiot. You are an idiot squared.
I'm more than willing to let Pro know when I think he's being stupid: we recently had a lengthy debate in the other forum. However, I'm not reading any of that Occupy stuff because I don't even care, so I don't know if he's being an idiot too or if it's just you. That makes no difference, though. It doesn't matter if you got your idiocy from Michael Jordan, Jesus Christ or the lead singer from the band Foreigner, because I'm not talking to any of them right now. I'm talking to you, an adult who apparently believes repeating the stupid things others do means you're not stupid.
Because you KNOW the Republican shills, Iggy. They're not interested in choosing proper candidates. They just need a life-win, and this is as close as they might be able to get.
The Pussy chose Herman Cain, and was let down. The Traitor chose the racist redneck, and is again, let down.
Iggy, they're all childish fools. They're squirming in their bile because they keep choosing the losing sides. Don't sweat them. Post what you want, HOW you want, WHERE you want. They can't stop you. All they can do is come running and cry and lie and throw a tantrum. We win just by posting here.
P.S. Cain is a simplistic, ignorant fool who is just another corrupt millionaire trying to fleece the masses. I love watching the Shills scramble to defend anyone with an (R) in front of their name...
Herman Cain is a pretty smart "dumb fuck". And again: insults are not facts. It is disturbing that you and others openly endorse this unfounded slander. ALLEGATIONS THAT WOULD BE BELOW PUBLIC DISCUSSION IF MADE AGAINST A DEMOCRAT!
As I've said repeatedly, if you want to criticize Herman Cain for being weak on foreign policy, or on other actual issues, fair enough. And I've already agreed with you on that. But to leap on these unfounded sexual allegations is both malicious and not an equal standard.
He's the one hiding behind it being a relationship based on consent. I never had a problem with people calling Wiener out for being a sack of shit. As I said, Cain's own defense buries him more than anything that woman said.
I don't buy that.
The media took several days (until the evidence became undeniable) before they ever laid a glove on Weiner. I devoted a topic to it!
Whereas the (liberal) media leaped on allegations toward Herman Cain. They (and you) are eager to destroy the man with the most viciouss --and unfounded-- allegations.
AGAIN: disqualify him on the issues, okay, that I've already agreed with (on that point I believe Ron Paul has likewise disqualified himself, on Iran policy). But to eagerly trash him on unfounded allegations, that will destroy him personally, way beyond the end of his candidacy. Based on nothing at this point. I think he is inexperienced, and just doesn't know how to respond. If he is innocent but gives the issue too much response, his campaign can be damaged further, despite his innocence. He is trying to remain politically viable.
Compare this to Clarence Thomas, who in Oct 1991 was in tears at the pain the allegations had caused him and his family. I admire Herman Cain for being able to take it in stride and keep going.
I accept the facts when revealed, whatever they are. But I'm not eager to condemn a very accomplished and decent guy. Who has brought several large companies back from the edge of bankruptcy. Who has a mathematics degree. Who was the leading front-runner for president until a few weeeks ago. He may not be presidential material, but he is certainly worthy of better than dismissal as a "dumb fuck". And that kind of personal attack smacks of partisan bias.
No, he's not. He's a dumb fuck. Let's quit with the Thomas comparisons. It makes you look like a racist fuck. It is no better nor worse than the left playing the race card. Second, it doesn't work as a comparison anymore. No one who Thomas "thought was a friend" said he fucked her.
I don't think Cain is sufficiently experienced to be president and he's nowhere as smart as Clarence Thomas (and, of course, people can legitimately disagree with his political views).
But I don't see how he can legitimately be called a "dumb fuck."
He's got several degrees, he's run successful business and he's written a syndicated newspaper column.
He's a best selling author, talk show host, and millionaire entrepreneur. Surely, we'd all like to be such an idiot. Thanks for playing, G-shill.
I couldn't have called Beck an idiot. You must have made that up. Obviously a "shill" such as myself would never criticize one of the movement's leaders.
Perhaps I misunderstood you. I read your post to mean that you literally saw Cain as uneducated or lacking in accumen as opposed to simply using "fool" "dumb fuck" or "idiot" as shorthand for "someone who said or did something foolish" (which I believe was the context in which I commented on Beck). I responded based on how I read your post.
In any event, why the lashing out on this topic? It's not like I've said Cain should be president or sharply criticized you for not supporting him. If anything, we've agreed about him almost as much as we've disagreed.
Not lashing out. Just pointing out that there is not really much difference between are usages. The original dumb fuck comment was early in the thread:
Quote:
I don't discount a petty criminal's testimony against a mob boss just because he commit a few crimes. Sure, this woman doesn't have a great background. Whatever. Cain should've called her on that rather than try to jump ahead of the story while his lawyer put out a statement saying that relationships where both sides consent are private and shall not be discussed. To me, at least, that says, "I was fucking her" more than anything she said. Good grief. Take the blinders off and look at what a dumb fuck this guy really is.
Not lashing out. Just pointing out that there is not really much difference between are usages. The original dumb fuck comment was early in the thread..."Take the blinders off and look at what a dumb fuck this guy really is."
Fair enough. As mentioned before, I thought you meant it one way but it was possible I misunderstood your intent. Clearly I did.
P.S. Cain is a simplistic, ignorant fool who is just another corrupt millionaire trying to fleece the masses. I love watching the Shills scramble to defend anyone with an (R) in front of their name...
I think a more apt comparison is between Cain and John Edwards in 2008.
Edwards was, like Cain, one of the top polling candidates. But in Edwards' case, only the National Enquirer paid much attention to the affair (which resulted in a child out of wedlock and, ultimately, Edwards being indicted for misusing campaign funds).
The press all but buried the Edwards story until after he was out of the running for president. They jumped on the Cain story while he was on top.
Seems like a double standard.
The National Enquirer did stake outs on Edwards mistress. Cain had women hold press conferences. The tabloid actually went further to get Edwards. So perhaps a double standard but one that favored Cain. Edwards wasn't even able to play the race card.
The difference is that the Enquirer was, for a long time, the ONLY "news" organization covering Edwards. Meaning Edwards only had to deal with a supermarket tabloid of oft-dubious reliability. Cain had-and has-to deal with the major networks and newspapers.
The double standard was in the "legitimate" news organizations.
Cain has had to deal with the networks because the women have come forward. That wasn't the case with Edwards. A tabloid took more agressive action to get that story. If his mistress had come out, it would have been a story just like it was when Flowers came out for Clinton.
P.S. Cain is a simplistic, ignorant fool who is just another corrupt millionaire trying to fleece the masses. I love watching the Shills scramble to defend anyone with an (R) in front of their name...
I thought that infidelity was just about sex and we shouldn't judge elected officials over it? Isn't that what we heard during the impeachment trials back in the 90s?
Nope G-man. I can understand why you would try to say that now but Clinton's cheating wasn't ok. Now I do know many conservatives like to tout family values and personal responsibility. (but it's really meant for others isn't it?)
Herman Cain is a pretty smart "dumb fuck". And again: insults are not facts. It is disturbing that you and others openly endorse this unfounded slander. ALLEGATIONS THAT WOULD BE BELOW PUBLIC DISCUSSION IF MADE AGAINST A DEMOCRAT!
As I've said repeatedly, if you want to criticize Herman Cain for being weak on foreign policy, or on other actual issues, fair enough. And I've already agreed with you on that. But to leap on these unfounded sexual allegations is both malicious and not an equal standard.
He's the one hiding behind it being a relationship based on consent. I never had a problem with people calling Wiener out for being a sack of shit. As I said, Cain's own defense buries him more than anything that woman said.
I don't buy that.
The media took several days (until the evidence became undeniable) before they ever laid a glove on Weiner. I devoted a topic to it!
Whereas the (liberal) media leaped on allegations toward Herman Cain. They (and you) are eager to destroy the man with the most viciouss --and unfounded-- allegations.
AGAIN: disqualify him on the issues, okay, that I've already agreed with (on that point I believe Ron Paul has likewise disqualified himself, on Iran policy). But to eagerly trash him on unfounded allegations, that will destroy him personally, way beyond the end of his candidacy. Based on nothing at this point. I think he is inexperienced, and just doesn't know how to respond. If he is innocent but gives the issue too much response, his campaign can be damaged further, despite his innocence. He is trying to remain politically viable.
Compare this to Clarence Thomas, who in Oct 1991 was in tears at the pain the allegations had caused him and his family. I admire Herman Cain for being able to take it in stride and keep going.
I accept the facts when revealed, whatever they are. But I'm not eager to condemn a very accomplished and decent guy. Who has brought several large companies back from the edge of bankruptcy. Who has a mathematics degree. Who was the leading front-runner for president until a few weeeks ago. He may not be presidential material, but he is certainly worthy of better than dismissal as a "dumb fuck". And that kind of personal attack smacks of partisan bias.
Originally Posted By: iggy
No, he's not. He's a dumb fuck. Let's quit with the Thomas comparisons. It makes you look like a racist fuck. It is no better nor worse than the left playing the race card. Second, it doesn't work as a comparison anymore. No one who Thomas "thought was a friend" said he fucked her.
Man, that is really frigging beyond the pale. Have you gone all Promod, where you have no other goal than pissing someone off to get a reaction?
So... it's "racist" to be offended that two black men (Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain) have been slandered without evidence in an attempt to not only end their nomination/candidacy, but to destroy them personally? Without evidence? I'm sorry that my defense of two black men offends you. The fact is, these are the two men I could think of offhand that have been slandered the worst with sexual allegations in the last 20 years, and perhaps EVER. And they both happen to be black.
I think "racist" would be a label more appropriately unleashed on those who slandered them.
AGAIN: There are plenty of legitimate political points on which to criticize Herman Cain. On those I've agreed with you repeatedly. But this line of attack has no basis in fact.
I just watched Hannity interview Herman Cain, and he said of the 47 or so phone calls with his latest attacker, only TWO of those calls were initiated by him. He said he's given money to friends, members of his church, and subordinates over many years who needed financial help, both male and female. Elsewhere, I saw that this woman was evicted today from her apartment because she has over $7,000 in unpaid back rent. She alsso sued someone else (not Herman Cain) previously and unsuccessfully for sexual harassment.
If she had unrelated charges such as drunk driving or writing bad checks, or drug possession, I'd say she might still be credible. But when she has previous examples of unleashing the same kind of allegations with a motive of collecting money, I dismiss as ridiculous your notion that she is "still believable".
NOT. ONE. SCRAP. OF. EVIDENCE.
And in previous Democrat examples of Weiner, Clinton, and Edwards, to name just a few, the liberal media set a far higher bar for reporting the sex allegations, and required evidence they don't require in smearing a Republican candidate. EVEN WITH evidence on Weiner, there were far more stories (according to Media Research Center) about the Herman Cain allegations, than there were about Anthony Weiner's proven-beyond-question guilt.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
A. All you care about is someone beating Obama. That in and of itself makes you pathetic.
So sayeth the retard that boycotts voting.
Quote:
B. The sentence should be something along the lines of "the mob rage of which you are, apparently, very fond.
A grammar nitpick? You really had nothing else better to pad your reply with?
Look at that! I ended the sentence with a preposition!
Quote:
C. Holding your nose to vote tells me very clearly that you are a completely liar when it comes to saying you hold your vote sacred. Your own paragraph exposes you as a lying sack of shit that really only votes based on who you think will cause the least damage. Hence, the fact that you hold your fucking nose to do it. You are exactly what they want in a voter. Enjoy the decline because you continue to vote for it.
So sayeth the retard that boycotts voting.
"What they want in a voter," huh? Where's that tinfoil hat photo?
Who can deny that any candidate but Obama would do a better job?
Either Gingrich or Romney would reduce spending and enact pro-business policies thsat would create millions more jobs (particularly with Republican majorities in the Senate and Congress after Nov 2012)
If anyone wants to truly understand Barack Obama and his actions as president, read THE ROOTS OF OBAMA'S RAGE by Dinesh D'Souza. His research and insight into Obama's anti-colonial motives, and the ironic deep influence of his absent father due to the fact his mother worshipped the absent Obama Sr. like a god (and instilled that worship into her son, Obama Jr.)
And also details Obama's deep indoctrination in Saul Alinsky, and the influence of Frank Marshall Davis, Rev Jeremiah Wright, his own marxist mother, father and grandparents, William Ayers, and other far-left professors, colleagues, fellow activists and fellow student radicals.
Obama's worldview is all about redistribution of wealth and punishing the colonialist sins of the West. Obama has only a distant interest in resolving America's economic and social problems, which he regards as a distraction from his true liberation-theology wealth-redistribution goals, and any attempts to address economic crisis Obama only postures at periodically to remain somewhat politically viable.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
I just watched Hannity interview Herman Cain, and he said...
BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!
I said in a job interview that I was proficient with Mac software. Doesn't mean it is fucking true!
Your factless and insulting posting style increasingly mirrors Prometheus's. I enjoy talking to you when your don't resort to this crap.
The fact remains: There is no evidence against Cain, beyond allegations from highly questionable women with money problems, who have previously tried to resolve those problems with sexual harassment allegations against men other than Herman Cain.
AGAIN: There are legitimate grounds to attack Cain, on his politics. It is vicious beyond point of reason to focus on these sexual allegations when there are legitimate issues Herman Cain can more honestly be criticized on.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Who can deny that any candidate but Obama would do a better job?
Either Gingrich or Romney would reduce spending and enact pro-business policies thsat would create millions more jobs (particularly with Republican majorities in the Senate and Congress after Nov 2012)
If anyone wants to truly understand Barack Obama and his actions as president, read THE ROOTS OF OBAMA'S RAGE by Dinesh D'Souza. His research and insight into Obama's anti-colonial motives, and the ironic deep influence of his absent father due to the fact his mother worshipped the absent Obama Sr. like a god (and instilled that worship into her son, Obama Jr.)
And also details Obama's deep indoctrination in Saul Alinsky, and the influence of Frank Marshall Davis, Rev Jeremiah Wright, his own marxist mother, father and grandparents, William Ayers, and other far-left professors, colleagues, fellow activists and fellow students.
Obama's worldview is all about redistribution of wealth and punishing the colonialist sins of the West. Obama has only a distant interest in resolving America's economic and social problems, which he regards as a distraction from his true goals, economic priorities that Obama only pursues periodically to remain somewhat politically viable.
See, this is where you sound completely schizo. Is he anti-colonialist marxist or is he in the big banks' pockets? The names Summers, Rubin, Geithner and Bernanke lead me to the belief that D'Souza is totally blowing all this anti-colonialst shit out of his ass. Barack Hussein Obama eats, breathes, and shits for the same "too big to fails" he feigns to rage against.
Neither Gingrich nor Romney are going to really be any better. They have the same masters. Matter of fact, your sentence about them reads exactly like a Luntz talking point. I'm sure he is glad you eat it all up. It takes awhile, but memories come back. Memories of Newt being shown a three-hundred thousand dollar bill for ethic violations. Sitting next to Nancy and calling for carbon taxes. Working for Freddie. Here is his "Serial Hypocrisy" laid out in wonderful video format:
I just watched Hannity interview Herman Cain, and he said...
BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!
I said in a job interview that I was proficient with Mac software. Doesn't mean it is fucking true!
Your factless and insulting posting style increasingly mirrors Prometheus's. I enjoy talking to you when your don't resort to this crap.
The fact remains: There is no evidence against Cain, beyond allegations from highly questionable women with money problems, who have previously tried to resolve those problems with sexual harassment allegations against men other than Herman Cain.
AGAIN: There are legitimate grounds to attack Cain, on his politics. It is vicious beyond point of reason to focus on these sexual allegations when there are legitimate issues Herman Cain can more honestly be criticized on.
Just go ahead and ignore me. I don't give a shit. Unless talking about a subject with which I agree you, I'm just going to be told that I am most likely wrong and directed to "proper thinking" by indoctrinating myself in whatever Carney, D'Souza, or Beck have to fucking say about it. So, what's the fucking point?
Am I being combative? Yeah. Do I care? No. If you even realized just how much condescending and preachy your posts are most of the time then maybe you would understand why nearly everyone taunts and laughs at you.
See my response to G-Man in the comics forum thread Doc Mid-Nite made. I'm more than happy to be reasonable. But, it's a two way fucking street.
![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/blogban3.jpg)
[/center]![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/jlamiska.jpg)
[/center]
