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.
So, yeah, fuck it. Ignore me. Whatever.
Re-read your own post, then get back to me about "condescending and preachy".
And look in the mirror.
When you are respectful, I am respectful. To my memory, I never spoke to you in a condescending way, until the Occupy Wall Street topic. Where you became Pro's cheerleader, and became equally arrogant, condescending and abrasive yourself. (i.e., if you don't agree with me, you're a right wing shill, etc.) I took it in stride for a long time, but when you kept it up, I finally fired back. You're Pro-Lite. And I began to disengage from your posts when you started chiming in cheering on Promod's worst behavior, and mimmicking his style yourself.
It's kind of schizophrenic, where you initiate polite discussions at times, and other times leap into topics with guns blazing and insult anyone who disagrees with your written-on-stone-tablets-and-brought-down-from-Mount-Sinai opinion. And anyone who dares to disagree is another Republican shill or indoctrinated stooge.
So... fuck you.
You are not god. Or the end-all beat-all authoritative opinion on what is and isn't truth. Your insults and condescension are just your opinion, and you've already made clear your eagerness to lower these discussions in a cocky insult-laden manner identical to Prometheus.
When you can cease calling anyone who disagrees with you a "shill" and similar blanket insults, I'll think about taking you off ignore.
Every time you've offered some article to read, I've read it. Every time I give you sources to read, you shrug them off as corporate-shill indoctination written by a "clown". I've read these books. You haven't. And they are filled with detailed and sourced information. Obamanomics in particular I think is incredibly fair to both sides, and gels with your opinion of a corporate-finace system that infects both parties. But even as you call me and others a "shill", it's you who refuses to read any sources that even potentially contradict your indoctrinated views.
It's funny as hell, the way the worst offenders here accuse ME of being the instigator. With you, with Pro, with Rex, each of you, I tried so hard to be polite with you, far more than you deserved or reciprocated. Each of you didn't just fire the first shot, you fired the first 10,000 shots before I finally responded in kind.
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.
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.
See, this is where you sound completely schizo. Is he anti-colonialist marxist or is he in the big banks' pockets? .
Not really schizo. Even socialsts need banks. Setting up a "partnership" where the "private" bank gets government government exclusivity and protection could be mutally beneficial to both the central planner and the too big to fail bank.
Such set ups with various businesses are not uncommon in totalitarian and socialist countries.
I'm not saying Obama's doing this here but it's not impossible or inherently contradictory either.
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.
Did you know a tabloid actually did stake outs to catch Edwards? I couldn't imagine the outrage from republicans if that had been done to Cain. Do you feel that the media isn't supposed to report on the growing list of women coming forward? Each time a woman comes forward it generates more stories WB.
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...
Seriously, Iggy. I've been doing this a lot longer. I promise you, there's no cracking that Crazy-Shell David keeps around him. He doesn't comprehend alternate points of view...based with facts, or not. He is a Republican/Tea Party zealot. He has no other purpose in expanding his thinking. So, why bother?
National Enquirer?? theimmoralminority.com quoting The National Enquirer?? NY Daily Times quoting The Enquirer??? These are from the same source. And what a "source". You're not even trying. Just "Shilling", like normal. What next? You use FOXNews as a source for "Liberal Media" conspiracies?
Someone please quote this so that Gordon can see me calling him on his normal bullshit routine...
National Enquirer?? theimmoralminority.com quoting The National Enquirer?? NY Daily Times quoting The Enquirer??? These are from the same source. And what a "source". You're not even trying. Just "Shilling", like normal. What next? You use FOXNews as a source for "Liberal Media" conspiracies?
Someone please quote this so that Gordon can see me calling him on his normal bullshit routine...
Please read my post--and MEM's post to which I was responding--again, Iggy.
MEM speculated what would happen if the Enquirer went after a republican. I simply pointed out they had, namely, Palin. I'm not citing them as authority for anything, simply noting that event which MEM speculated about had, in fact, occurred.
Please read my post--and MEM's post to which I was responding--again, Iggy.
MEM speculated what would happen if the Enquirer went after a republican. I simply pointed out they had, namely, Palin. I'm not citing them as authority for anything, simply noting that event which MEM speculated about had, in fact, occurred.
First of all, address me directly, old man. You're acting childish.
Second, in context, I absolutely agree I misread your intentions. And I apologize for doing so. I am, to be honest, slightly relieved to be wrong. For a moment, I thought you were trying to use the NE as legit source to be relied on as "factual". That would have signaled the onset of dementia.
Re-read your own post, then get back to me about "condescending and preachy".
And look in the mirror.
When you are respectful, I am respectful. To my memory, I never spoke to you in a condescending way, until the Occupy Wall Street topic. Where you became Pro's cheerleader, and became equally arrogant, condescending and abrasive yourself. (i.e., if you don't agree with me, you're a right wing shill, etc.) I took it in stride for a long time, but when you kept it up, I finally fired back. You're Pro-Lite. And I began to disengage from your posts when you started chiming in cheering on Promod's worst behavior, and mimmicking his style yourself.
It's kind of schizophrenic, where you initiate polite discussions at times, and other times leap into topics with guns blazing and insult anyone who disagrees with your written-on-stone-tablets-and-brought-down-from-Mount-Sinai opinion. And anyone who dares to disagree is another Republican shill or indoctrinated stooge.
So... fuck you.
You are not god. Or the end-all beat-all authoritative opinion on what is and isn't truth. Your insults and condescension are just your opinion, and you've already made clear your eagerness to lower these discussions in a cocky insult-laden manner identical to Prometheus.
When you can cease calling anyone who disagrees with you a "shill" and similar blanket insults, I'll think about taking you off ignore.
Every time you've offered some article to read, I've read it. Every time I give you sources to read, you shrug them off as corporate-shill indoctination written by a "clown". I've read these books. You haven't. And they are filled with detailed and sourced information. Obamanomics in particular I think is incredibly fair to both sides, and gels with your opinion of a corporate-finace system that infects both parties. But even as you call me and others a "shill", it's you who refuses to read any sources that even potentially contradict your indoctrinated views.
It's funny as hell, the way the worst offenders here accuse ME of being the instigator. With you, with Pro, with Rex, each of you, I tried so hard to be polite with you, far more than you deserved or reciprocated. Each of you didn't just fire the first shot, you fired the first 10,000 shots before I finally responded in kind.
You were dismissive from the outset you sanctimonious bitch. And, please, feel free to read on to page 26 where you question the authenticity of fucking army veterans. You're a tool. Fuck you and thanks for the ignore. I'm gonna ask for some one to pass this on and then I'm done with you.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Some "journalist" bought a house RIGHT NEXT DOOR to the Palin residence, way beyond a week or so of surveilance. Staking out a candidate is certainly not anything new. It at least goes back to Gary Hart's candidacy in 1987-1988.
Again: allegations against Herman Cain are not facts. And they wouldn't even be news if the allegations were made about a Democrat (as shown in the examples of Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, and many others). In each case they gave very limited coverage until the allegations against a Democrat became undeniable. Whereas with a Republican, they came on full blast the moment an unproven allegation was made. And even after the Anthony Weiner nude internet pictures and so forth were absolutely proven, the media still gave greater coverage to the unproven Herman Cain allegations. Media Bias? You bet.
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.
Re-read your own post, then get back to me about "condescending and preachy".
And look in the mirror.
When you are respectful, I am respectful. To my memory, I never spoke to you in a condescending way, until the Occupy Wall Street topic. Where you became Pro's cheerleader, and became equally arrogant, condescending and abrasive yourself. (i.e., if you don't agree with me, you're a right wing shill, etc.) I took it in stride for a long time, but when you kept it up, I finally fired back. You're Pro-Lite. And I began to disengage from your posts when you started chiming in cheering on Promod's worst behavior, and mimmicking his style yourself.
It's kind of schizophrenic, where you initiate polite discussions at times, and other times leap into topics with guns blazing and insult anyone who disagrees with your written-on-stone-tablets-and-brought-down-from-Mount-Sinai opinion. And anyone who dares to disagree is another Republican shill or indoctrinated stooge.
So... fuck you.
You are not god. Or the end-all beat-all authoritative opinion on what is and isn't truth. Your insults and condescension are just your opinion, and you've already made clear your eagerness to lower these discussions in a cocky insult-laden manner identical to Prometheus.
When you can cease calling anyone who disagrees with you a "shill" and similar blanket insults, I'll think about taking you off ignore.
Every time you've offered some article to read, I've read it. Every time I give you sources to read, you shrug them off as corporate-shill indoctination written by a "clown". I've read these books. You haven't. And they are filled with detailed and sourced information. Obamanomics in particular I think is incredibly fair to both sides, and gels with your opinion of a corporate-finace system that infects both parties. But even as you call me and others a "shill", it's you who refuses to read any sources that even potentially contradict your indoctrinated views.
It's funny as hell, the way the worst offenders here accuse ME of being the instigator. With you, with Pro, with Rex, each of you, I tried so hard to be polite with you, far more than you deserved or reciprocated. Each of you didn't just fire the first shot, you fired the first 10,000 shots before I finally responded in kind.
You were dismissive from the outset you sanctimonious bitch. And, please, feel free to read on to page 26 where you question the authenticity of fucking army veterans. You're a tool. Fuck you and thanks for the ignore. I'm gonna ask for some one to pass this on and then I'm done with you.
See, this is where you sound completely schizo. Is he anti-colonialist marxist or is he in the big banks' pockets? .
Not really schizo. Even socialsts need banks. Setting up a "partnership" where the "private" bank gets government government exclusivity and protection could be mutally beneficial to both the central planner and the too big to fail bank.
Such set ups with various businesses are not uncommon in totalitarian and socialist countries.
I'm not saying Obama's doing this here but it's not impossible or inherently contradictory either.
I'm not saying it is impossible. Hitler had a very cozy relationship with the banks. But, as you pointed out, he got something out of it. He got a fairly amazing economic recovery. There has been nothing co-beneficial from Obama's banking relationship. Further, IMO, if Barack was really such an anti-colonialist marxist then he would nationalize the banks. I'm not saying it is impossible. I'm saying that Wondy has painted pictures of Obama that are so extremely separate from each other that they are mutually contradicting.
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.
This fucknut really posts from only the most trusted, objective news-sites, guys. We really all ought to just bend down and kiss his Republican ass for being so totally non-partisan.
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 didn't vote in one election out of many on the slate. You don't want me to boycott. Fine. Offer me the chance to go on the record with my lack of confidence in any of the choices.
Juanita Broaddrick is an American former nursing home administrator from Arkansas. She alleged in 1998 that United States President Bill Clinton had raped her two decades earlier. Clinton's attorney denied the allegations on his client's behalf.
Contents [hide] 1 Allegations against Bill Clinton 1.1 Public and press reactions 1.2 Legal consequences 2 References
Allegations against Bill Clinton
In 1997, Broaddrick had filed a sworn affidavit with Paula Jones' lawyers, denying that Clinton had ever assaulted her: "During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies... These allegations are untrue ...."[1] In November 1998, Broaddrick contradicted her sworn statement in an interview with Dateline NBC.[2][3] The interview, broadcast in February 1999, centered around Broaddrick's accusation that Clinton had raped her on April 25, 1978, during his first campaign for the governorship of the U.S. state of Arkansas, at a time when Clinton was the Attorney General for the state.[citation needed]
In an interview by Dorothy Rabinowitz for the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Broaddrick claimed that Clinton had told her not to worry about pregnancy, because childhood mumps had rendered him sterile.[4] The alleged incident occurred two years before Clinton's daughter with his wife Hillary Rodham was born.
Broaddrick recanted her earlier sworn statement when interviewed by the FBI about the Jones case; the FBI found her account inconclusive, and the affidavit denying the allegations remains her only sworn testimony. Broaddrick later said of the affidavit, "I didn’t want to be forced to testify about one of the most horrific events in my life. I didn't want to go through it again."[2] David Schippers, the Chief Investigative Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee which was holding an inquiry on whether Clinton had committed impeachable offenses, stated that he believed Broaddrick filed the affidavit because of intimidation from Clinton, saying, "She was so terrified. And the reason she was terrified was because she saw what had happened to Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers and all the rest of them."[5] Although Broaddrick claimed that no one had pressured her to file a false affidavit, she complained that she was being watched from parked cars, her home had been broken into, her pets released and her answering machine tape stolen while she and her husband were away briefly, during the House impeachment probe.[5]
In 1984, Broaddrick's nursing facility was adjudged the best in the state, which brought a congratulatory official letter from the governor. On the bottom was a handwritten note from Clinton, saying, "I admire you very much." She reputedly interpreted it as a "thank you" for her silence.[2] Broaddrick said that Clinton tried to apologize to her in 1991, and claimed he had changed. In response to his apologies, as she told the Washington Post, "I told him to go to hell, and I walked off".[6]
Five people have stated that Broaddrick told them about a rape shortly after it allegedly occurred. Of these, two were Broaddrick's co-worker Norma Kelsey and her sister; Slate Explainer proposes that they may have a grudge against Clinton for commuting the sentence of the man who killed their father, noting further that a third corroborator is Broaddrick's current husband, who was involved in an extramarital affair with her at the time. Broaddrick did not tell her then-husband of the alleged assault at the time.[7]
Broaddrick claimed she did not remember the exact date on which she was allegedly raped, but she did supply the name of the hotel (Camelot), and the reason she was visiting Little Rock (a nursing home seminar) when the incident had allegedly occurred.[7] NBC News found that a nursing conference was held in the Camelot Hotel on April 25, 1978.[2] The hotel was located in the state capitol, where news reports indicate Clinton was that day, also suggesting that he had no known official commitments that morning. The Clinton White House declined to release his official schedule for the date. Three weeks after this date, Broaddrick attended a Clinton fundraiser. According to The Wall Street Journal (February 19, 1999, p. A18), "Her [Broaddrick's] friend Norma Rogers, a nurse who had accompanied her on the trip", found Broaddrick distraught shortly after the time of the alleged attack.[citation needed] Clinton made no mention of Broaddrick or the alleged incident in his 2004 memoir My Life.
Public and press reactions
In March 1999, a few months after the allegations publicly aired, 56% of Americans believed the allegations were false, while a third believed that Broaddrick's allegation of rape was at least possibly true. Similarly, 29% of the public felt the press should continue to cover the story, while 66% felt that the media should stop pursuing the story.[8]
According to Jack Nelson, Washington bureau chief of the Los Angeles Times, many journalists were skeptical: "This is a story that's been knocked down and discredited so many times, I was shocked to see it in the [Wall Street] Journal today.... [E]veryone's taken a slice of it, and after looking at it, everyone's knocked it down. The woman has changed her story about whether it happened. It just wasn't credible."[9] Joe Conason and Gene Lyons' book The Hunting of the President argued that Broaddrick's claim is not credible and contains numerous inconsistencies.
Michael Isikoff's book, Uncovering Clinton, and Christopher Hitchens' book, No One Left to Lie To, argued that Broaddrick's claim is credible and shows similarities to Paula Jones' later allegation of sexual harassment. Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen commented, "And yet, I cannot get [Broaddrick's] accusation out of my head. On television, and in interviews with newspaper reporters, Broaddrick appeared credible."[10]
Legal consequences
Clinton's attorney, David Kendall, denied the allegations on Clinton's behalf. No legal action, civil or criminal, was taken against Clinton or Broaddrick based on the allegation. Broaddrick was never called as a witness during President Clinton's impeachment proceedings in January 1999.[6] In his book, Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton's Impeachment, Schippers said he wanted to call Broaddrick as a witness to discuss Clinton's intimidation, but it was too late.[11]
Broaddrick filed a lawsuit against Clinton in the summer of 1999, to obtain documents which the White House may have gathered about her, claiming its refusal to accede to her demand for such documents violated the Privacy Act of 1974. The case was dismissed in 2001. During the lawsuit, Broaddrick's business was audited by the IRS which she charged was retaliation: "I do not believe this was coincidence," Broaddrick declared, "I do not think our number just came up."[12]
...and yet Herman Cain's accusers have maximum coverage in the media, and Juanita Broaddrick was never given the same media consideration. Congressional investigators saw her 1997 statement (denying allegations Clinton raped her) as made out of fear.
But Broaddrick was otherwise credible. The facts (convention and hotel records, Clinton's daily itinerary) where both Clinton and Broaddrick allow for the time the rape was said to occur. Broaddrick's details of the rape align with the same pattern as Paula Jones and other Bill Clinton accusers.
And yet... while none of this kind of detail has been reported of Cain, the media is eager to insinuate Cain's guilt, with no evidence.
And never posted the more solid testimony and evidence of Broaddrick's allegations against Clinton. Because the media loved and supported Bill Clinton, and they despise Herman Cain.
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.
Ginger White, the woman alleging she had a 13-year sexual affair with Herman Cain, apologized Thursday to Cain's wife and their children for her actions, which could end up putting the nail in the coffin on the Republican businessman's bid for the White House.
"I am not a cold-hearted person. I am a mother of two kids. And of course my heart bleeds for this woman because I am a woman and being in a situation like this can not be fun," White said on MSNBC.
"And I am deeply, deeply sorry if I have caused any hurt to her and to his kids, to his family. That was not my intention. I never wanted to hurt anyone and I'm deeply sorry. I am very sorry," she told host Lawrence O'Donnell.
The candidate is set to meet late Friday with Gloria Cain for the first time since White's allegations became public to decide whether to press on with his campaign.
In October, Herman Cain was having the time of his life, according to those who know him well. At the front of the pack running for the 2012 Republican nomination for president, Cain had progressed much further and faster than he’d ever thought he could, given his weak political resume.
“Six weeks ago, Herman Cain was going home laughing his you know what off at how well he was doing,’’ says the Atlanta-based Rev. Joseph Lowery, friend of the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and former president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. “He was even surprised people were buying what he was selling. He has no business being in the race in the first place and he knows that better than anyone.’’
Then, in just a few days, things began to fall apart in a hurry as a string of women emerged accusing Cain of years of sexual advances and at least one long-term affair. So far Cain has done what he could to keep the charges from derailing his presidential bid, although in an interview with Fox News on Wednesday, the former pizza-company executive said once again that he was reassessing his campaign bid in light of recent allegations of a 13-year affair with an Atlanta businesswoman.
The Cain campaign denied any strife in the marriage, but one campaign worker speaking anonymously said that Cain doesn’t want to quit because he doesn’t want to be seen as a loser.
No matter what happens to Cain’s presidential aspirations, sources close to his family say the accusations of infidelity have already taken a significant toll on an already strained marriage.
A close friend of one Cain’s two children explained that Herman and Gloria Cain’s marriage has seen its share of trouble over the years and his attraction to other women always played a huge role in the friction.
Not posting the whole article. Click the link to view.
I didn't vote in one election out of many on the slate. You don't want me to boycott. Fine. Offer me the chance to go on the record with my lack of confidence in any of the choices.
I actually didn't vote in 2008 either. We'd moved and I didn't get around to registering in the new location. And since I live in NY it wasn't going to make a difference anyway.
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.
Isn't it also interesting that Herman Cain was in the running for months, and visible in about 20 televised debates, and making campaign appearances nationwide, and only when he became a front-runner, however briefly, did these women (with a history of past sexual harassment allegation lawsuits and financial problems) come forward? That seems to be about knee-capping a front runner, rather than "truth".
The evidence is non-existent beyond he said/she said allegations. The media's talking points for today is the alleged longtime problems in the marriage between Herman Cain and his wife. By anonymous sources, of course. I watched Mrs Cain interviewed for 30 minutes on Greta Van Susteren a few days ago. She defended her husband unwaveringly, and both she and Herman Cain have said yes, they have occasional arguments like any couple, but are very much in love.
The decision of Cain to possibly end his campaign seems to be about whether enduring these sexual allegations is worth it, because he otherwise is dropping in the polls. When he remained a front runner, it was worth enduring the sex allegations. But now he is debating whether the allegations are worth enduring, under diminished and possibly unretrievable support.
Similar examples from 4 years ago are Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. Or John McCain.
All hung on to the bitter end, despite pundits and common wisdom saying they should drop out.
Likewise Newt Gingrich 6 months ago. The media (even Fox News) were eager to declare him politically dead, and a joke. Now that "joke" is the far-away front runner.
Come to think of it, Bill Clinton at the same time in the 1991-1992 race was fielding similar allegations from Gennifer Flowers, and at least the suggestion of others, who later came forward.
Needless to say, the media had a slightly less eager reporting of those allegations, as compared to Cain.
