DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: R.R. on November 08, 2011, 06:59:30 PM
-
Flat out awesome presentation. He answered every question like a man and addressed this directly. Also, he looked presidential up there, despite the content.
This was a better speech than anything I have seen Obama give, and he went totally without notes but for a brief moment.
-
So we're still left with a he said - she said, correct? Add to that the timing, add to that Gloria Allred (and who's behind paying her), add to that other "accuser(s) being connected to Obama and/or David Axelrod
Well, Xo, you just might get your wish after all 8)
-
It looks like he is going to stay in.
I look forward to being amused by his antics.
-
Why is it amusing for somebody's reputation to be smeared by false accusations? That's sick.
One woman works in the Obama administration and her son works for Politico, and the other lived in the same apartment building as Axlerod. I do not believe these accusations are genuine.
-
Because the accusations are not false, and Cain knows this.
It will be amusing to see his demise, as it always is amusing to see a blowhard be deflated.
Come on, this clown is utterly incompetent to lead this country. He is ignorant of foreign affairs and proud of his ignorance.
A gasbag motivational speaker is all there is. We are hearing a gasbag being punctured.
-
Because the accusations are not false, and Cain knows this.
And you know this based on.......she said?? Sorry, not going to cut it I'm afraid
-
I have a right to think that when it is his word against her word and her word and her word AND her word that there is almost certainly something of truth in the accusations. But I would not vote for him anyway, because he is a crackpot and a blowhard. He reminds me of one of the less acceptable presidents of my college. All blather and ego, done in a preacherly style. The president in question was thrown out for incompetence and misuse of funds, but they gave him a nice parachute and allowed him to leave in a dignified manner, which he did not do to some of my colleagues who opposed him. So it is rather satisfying to see this pompous ass get punctured and slowly deflate in public.
If he did not want to be pilloried in public, remember that no one forced him to run for president.
-
So, you have no facts to make the claim that her accusations are not false, merely your opinion, based nothing more on her say so. Gotcha
-
And in that I am no different than anyone who votes in a primary for or against Cain.
This is not a criminal matter. It is legitimate to vote for or against anyone for any reason. There were people who voted against Hubert Humphrey just because he had a voice like a tortured chicken.
-
So, you have no facts to make the claim that her accusations are not false, merely your opinion, based nothing more on her say so. Yea, got that the 1st time
I'm one of those Americans that will go with innocent until proven guilty. Even when its a Democrat
-
I never saw the woman, never heard her voice, do not recall her name. Wow! what a defense!
I don't see a "flat out awesome presentation" in that. It is not the sort of speech that one can deliver in a "flat out awesome way".
-
Receipt, date, hotel/restaurant location, SOMETHING. Wow, what an unbelievable accusation, without such
-
Rightwingers are guilty unless they can prove themselves innocent, as far as I am concerned.
-
LOL....precisely. It doesn't matter a wit to innocence or not, "Rightwingers" are guilty of ......simply being
-
I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. Usually these pervs have multiple perversions.(1) Next will probably be his pedophilia.
The guys a bloody pedophile and you want to elect him president of this great land? Shame, shame.
BSB
(1) Of course I wouldn't know anything about peversion, I never got beyond the missionary position.
-
I never saw the woman, never heard her voice, do not recall her name. Wow! what a defense!
I don't see a "flat out awesome presentation" in that. It is not the sort of speech that one can deliver in a "flat out awesome way".
The accusation is in no way superior to this denyal.
-
Did I say it was?
I just said that his speech was not "awesome".
I was not awed, and do not see how anyone else could have been either.
-
Did you even watch the speech in full?
-
Cain's a Republican, RR. A conservative no less. And *gasp*, a black conservative. Xo would watch just enough (perhaps 30seconds at most) to validate, in his mind, his complete disdain for the man, and how horrible he'd be as President
-
He would be horrible because he is a blowhard and a crackpot, he knows diddly about foreign affairs and is proud of it and uninterested in learning, and 9-9-9 would cost me a lot more in taxes. It's not like I think he would try to force a blowjob from Angela Merkel.
Republicans are either members of the Oligarchy or its hirelings. So are some Democrats. Cain is a Republican. And that is simply one more minus.
-
See what I mean, RR?
-
<<Why is it amusing for somebody's reputation to be smeared by false accusations? That's sick.>>
Why was $80K paid out for "false accusations?" That is way beyond the "nuisance value" at which most baseless claims are settled. Especially cases where trial would have been quick and easy, there being no documentary or physical evidence involved, and a "thorough investigation" having already been conducted by the employer and Cain's ass already out the door before the settlement was even signed.
<<One woman works in the Obama administration and her son works for Politico . . . >>
That was an outright lie, which the Cain campaign has already had to retract. Someone with the same last name as the accuser but not related to her at all had previously worked at Politico but had been long gone by the time Politico broke the story.
<<and the other lived in the same apartment building as Axlerod. >>
Now THAT is a serious allegation. Living in the same apartment building as David Axelrod can easily make one a slave to his nefarious plots. All I can say in her defence is that she probably didn't check the full tenant list carefully enough before moving into that building and falling under his evil spell.
<<I do not believe these accusations are genuine.>>
Nor do I. It is just bad luck and sheer coincidence that four different women, all on the payroll of the same company, one living at the same address as David Axelrod and all of the others within a five-mile radius of his apartment building have come forward with these accusations against him.
I was kind of wondering, though - - why did these four crazy bitches all come out against the Hermster, and not, say, against Mitt Romney or The Newt? Then I realized - - of course!!! Cain's the front runner. It's the old principle, concentrate your fire. Once he's knocked off, the four crazy bitches will change their story and accuse the new front runner with sexual harassment. Or to make it even more credible, Axelrod will recruit four NEW women from his apartment building to launch the new wave of fake sexual harassment charges against the new front-runner. The beauty of his scheme is that it's self-replicating. That building has an endless supply of crazy bitches. The REAL trick is getting them onto the payroll of whoever employed the front-runner back in the day. It's a trade secret that Axelrod will never reveal. If he does, Gloria Allred will have him killed by a fake heart attack.
-
I heard ALL of Cain's denial. It was just a denial. It was not awesome, I was unawed. I find nothing awesome about Cain. In my career, I have heard a LOT of bombastic Black preachers, and this guy is no more than a 5 out of 10 in his oratorical skills, if that.
So this woman lost her job in Chicago, and went to DC to see the Cain, Head High Honcho. Her suite was upgraded, she says. I am sure that there will be no records available, since it would take a subpoena to demand them, and after all that time the statutes of limitations have run out and there will be no subpoena. And of course, records from that long ago would not be easily located in any case.
I doubt that we have heard the last of the accusations against Cain. I agree with Tee that living in Axelrod's building is no big deal.
-
Why the hell would there be no records of her being in the hotel, much less upgraded to a suite?? Did the hotel burn down, and all records were lost?? Do we even have the name of the hotel, and a date this would have occured?? That would allow fact checkers to dig much more efficiently......IF the accusation had any merit
-
While looking for information on how long hotels keep room records and guest records, I found nothing (I guess any decent school of hotel management could answer the question) but I did come across THIS, which is very interesting. Your taxpayer dollars at work in the national security state, a CIA manual on how to conduct operations in a hotel, from soup to nuts:
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol9no4/html/v09i4a05p_0001.htm (https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol9no4/html/v09i4a05p_0001.htm)
-
Do you think that hotels keep records for decades? Do you have records of trips you took in 1998?
Records of unpaid upgrades, granted as a favor to the president of the NRA probably never existed.
There will be no records produced without a subpoena, and there will be no subpoena without a legal accusation.
There will be no legal accusation because the statute of limitations has surely run out.
The fact that this blowhard crackpot might have been some sort of sexual predator in the 1990's is not the major reason why he should never be elected president. Other reasons are in overwhelming abundance, like Wildebeest in the Serengeti during the annual migration. Like Penguins heading for McMurdo Sound, like suicidal lemmings in a Disney documentary.
-
Do you think that hotels keep records for decades? Do you have records of trips you took in 1998?
Yea, I do....and yes, they do. How about we start with the Hotel, and date. Then we can go from there
-
No one is starting with anything, for the reasons that I have mentioned twice.
I have no power to subpoena hotel records. I really, really doubt that you do, either.
Even if you molested this women or even Cain, your records would be of little use to this discussion.
-
It doesn't require a subpoena to say for the accuser to say "It happened on blank, at blank" She could even go so far as to say "Happened around blank, at the Hotel Blank"
THAT's the starting point I refer to, and requires no legal obligations
Records act as evidence to transition from a he-said she said, to proof of what she said. Until then, meritless accusations are of little use to this discussion, outside of those merely trying to lynch Cain with a PR rope
-
http://www.lordmilner.com/lord_milner_hotel_london_privacy_policy.htm#a7 (http://www.lordmilner.com/lord_milner_hotel_london_privacy_policy.htm#a7)
The Lord Milner Hotel in London, England, keeps records with personal guest information as long as is needed for the purposes for which the information was needed. Not very specific, but future investigation of possible charges against hotel guests and those paying for their rooms would probably not be required for any longer than a half-dozen monthly billing cycles, after which it would likely be transferred to Collections if still relevant, otherwise trashed.
I can't see any possible tax implications for the hotel not retaining records of who stayed when and where and who paid for what room. Common sense says that the room occupant and person paying is information that would be purged from the records after two years if not before then.
I can't see any hope at all for getting those records now. Furthermore, I can't recall the names of any hotels I stayed at 12 years ago and it's ridiculous to think that Cain, a married man, would have wanted to take this babe to dinner in some illustrious DC hotel like the Mayflower, which she might have had some chance of remembering.
Sharon Bialek told what she knows and her inability to remember meaningless details like name of hotel after 12 years is of no significance whatsoever.
-
Until then, meritless accusations are of little use to this discussion, outside of those merely trying to lynch Cain with a PR rope
======================================================
Nothing is of any really significant use here, UNLESS someone has the power to vote in one of the GOP primaries. This is, again, NOT a criminal case, and no matter how guilty or innocent Cain may be, no one is going to try him for the alleged offense.
The few people who hold the power here are those who can vote for Cain or one of his opponents in once of the first four or five primaries, and his sexual conduct ten years ago is only one among many factors they should consider and many more they could consider.
There will be no lynching, high tech or otherwise.
Cain will be the nominee or he will not be the nominee. I say no, he has little chance of winning the nomination.
If nominated, Cain will be or will not be elected president.
His chances of being elected are far less than those of his being nominated, in my opinion.
The votes of women, I imagine, will depend more on the opinions of the voters regarding the accusations of his being a molester.
-
Nice, albeit transparent deflection on what the accuser could do/should do, that requires no legal recourse, to voters and what they can do/can't do
-
Everybody with an ounce of common sense already knows that Cain is a sexual abuser of female employees. That FOUR women could conspire together, three of them years before Cain became a contender, to smear his name, simply defies all laws of probability. Why weren't four accusers found for GW Bush, or Romney or Huntsman or even the loathesome Newt?
Get real, people.
The real issue is whether GOP voters give a shit about this or not. My gut feeling is that they don't, otherwise they wouldn't embarrass themselves with such ludicrous defences of such an obviously guilty man. The investigation and substantial settlement of two claims, the speed with which The Perv's ass was out the employer's door, the number of accusers, all on the same payroll, the corroboration of witnesses who report being advised of the accusations at the approximate times of the offences, The Perv's constantly-changing stories of the events, etc.
Bottom line of course is that the GOP, the party of not giving a shit, doesn't give a shit. Bitch was asking for it, bitch couldn't make ends meet, bitch was a blonde - - any stupid reason, but at the end of the day, even if they have to admit that the guy is a pervert, they will still vote for him because they just don't give a shit.
-
And everyone not a member of the lunatic left, and in possession of far more common sense, not to mention logic, not to menion facts, knows that these unsubstantiated accusations, are no more than a he said/she said, aimed at a prominent conservative republican, that apparently scares the snot out of the liberal establishment, and the plantation they've so nicely concocted around their minority sheeple
IMHO the REAL, especially if my earlier Cain conclusion hypothesis comes to fruition, is if votes from all sides of the spectrum will come to some outrage and the transparent duplicity at work with the MSM. I'm not going to hold my breath, as the MSM has made their bed with Democrats, and they're going to parrot their talking points, while painting Republicans as the evil greedy, obstructionists, they they need to convince the electorate they are, since their fella can't run on his piss poor record...or judgement...or leadership.
-
Why was $80K paid out for "false accusations?" That is way beyond the "nuisance value" at which most baseless claims are settled. Especially cases where trial would have been quick and easy, there being no documentary or physical evidence involved, and a "thorough investigation" having already been conducted by the employer and Cain's ass already out the door before the settlement was even signed.
"Back when I was a lawyer I handled several sexual harassment suits. None of mine settled for less than the high end of six figures.
"Reading about these two complaints, my gut reaction to them is that settling for five figures, which could be as little as $10,000.00 and as high as $99,999, was 'go away' money.
"If the Chief Executive Officer of the National Restaurant Association, at the time one of the top 25 trade associations in Washington, D.C., were sexually harassing someone, that someone could get a lot of money. It just strikes me that a settlement for less than six figures is money paid to deal with the nuisances of an employee fired or otherwise let go who decided to raise the specter of harassment to get more money to leave without causing a scene."
http://is.gd/P54NNa (http://is.gd/P54NNa)
-
Sharon Bialek told what she knows and her inability to remember meaningless details like name of hotel after 12 years is of no significance whatsoever.
And yet, she remembers exactly what clothing she wore.
-
That FOUR women could conspire together, three of them years before Cain became a contender, to smear his name, simply defies all laws of probability. Why weren't four accusers found for GW Bush, or Romney or Huntsman or even the loathesome Newt?
Actually, three of them made their charges about the time that Cain was starting up his run for the 2000 election.
-
BTW, for everyone concerned.
The episode with Sharon Bialek occurred in mid-July 1997. The hotel was the Capital Hilton.
-
BTW, for everyone concerned. The episode with Sharon Bialek occurred in mid-July 1997. The hotel was the Capital Hilton.
Ahhh, excellent. Now, that narrows the fact finding. Thanks Ami......did the accuser finally provide these details?
-
Why was $80K paid out for "false accusations?" That is way beyond the "nuisance value" at which most baseless claims are settled.
"Back when I was a lawyer I handled several sexual harassment suits. None of mine settled for less than the high end of six figures.
"Reading about these two complaints, my gut reaction to them is that settling for five figures, which could be as little as $10,000.00 and as high as $99,999, was 'go away' money.
"If the Chief Executive Officer of the National Restaurant Association, at the time one of the top 25 trade associations in Washington, D.C., were sexually harassing someone, that someone could get a lot of money. It just strikes me that a settlement for less than six figures is money paid to deal with the nuisances of an employee fired or otherwise let go who decided to raise the specter of harassment to get more money to leave without causing a scene."
The real scandal in the accusations against Herman Cain is the corruption of the law, the media and politics.
Let's start with the law. Some people may think the fact that the National Restaurant Association reportedly paid $45,000 to settle a claim made by one of its employees against Mr. Cain is incriminating.
Most of us are not going to part with 45 grand without some serious reason. But that is very different from the situation of an organization in the present legal climate.
The figure $45,000 struck a chord with me because, some years ago, my wife -- who is an attorney -- was fervently congratulated when her client had to pay "only" $45,000 in a jury award when the plaintiff was demanding a million dollars, in a case that was as frivolous a lawsuit as you could find.
The person who was suing was a drunk driver, whose car went out of control and slammed into a tree. After the sheriff's deputies arrested her, she sued them on dubious charges, and the sheriff's department was glad it had to pay "only" $45,000.
The department was painfully aware of the uncertainty about what ruinous costs a jury might impose on the deputies.
The real scandal goes far beyond the case of Herman Cain and his accusers. The real scandal is that the law allows people to impose heavy costs on others at little or no cost to themselves. That is a perfect setting for legalized extortion.
The fact that neither judges nor juries always stick to the letter of the law means that people who have zero basis for a lawsuit, under the law as written, can still create enough uncertainty to extract money from people who cannot afford the risk of going to trial.
As for a $45,000 settlement, that is what an organization would pay to settle a nuisance lawsuit -- if they are lucky.
If we had a legal system where judges threw frivolous cases out of court, instead of letting them go to trial, that would put a damper on legalized extortion.
If those who bring charges that do not stand up in court had to pay the other party for their legal fees -- and should have to pay for their time as well -- these games could not go on.
It turns out that the women making televised charges against Herman Cain have past histories that do not inspire confidence, including in at least one case a history of making similar complaints against others.
Another woman who has come forward tells of Herman Cain asking her, at some conference, to see if she could locate some woman in the audience who had asked him a question, so that he could take her to dinner. This apparently struck her as suspicious.
This too reminded me of something I knew about personally. Many years ago, I was at a conference where a woman made some very insightful comments, and I took her to lunch to continue the discussion.
It so happens she was a nun. Contrary to cynics, there is more than one reason for a man to take a woman to lunch or dinner.
The same mainstream media whose responses to proven charges against Bill Clinton was, "Let's move on," is not about to move on from unproven charges against Herman Cain.
What role does race play in all this?
It is probably not racism, as such, that motivates these attacks on Herman Cain. The motivation is far more likely to be politics, but politics makes a prominent black conservative like Clarence Thomas or Herman Cain far more dangerous to the Democrats than an equally prominent white conservative.
The 90 percent black vote for Democrats is like money in the bank on election day. A prominent black conservative who offers an alternative view of the world is a serious danger politically, because if that alternative view has the net effect of reducing the black vote for Democrats just to 75 percent, the Democrats are in big trouble at election time.
In this political context, merely defeating a black conservative at the polls or at confirmation hearings is not enough. He must be destroyed as an influence in the future -- and character assassination is the most obvious way to do it.
The Real Scandal
(http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2011/11/10/the_real_scandal)
-
.........., and 9-9-9 would cost me a lot more in taxes.
Why?
If you dont mind that I pry.
-
It would cost me and my wife, as upper middle class, NON members of the 1% denomination, alot less
-
.........., and 9-9-9 would cost me a lot more in taxes.
=======================================
I do not pay a 9% sales tax. I do not pay income tax on what Social Security pays me. I do not pay into either SS. Medicare costs me about $98 per month. I no longer pay into the Medicare Trust Fund. I am retired.
I know what I pay in taxes now, and I know that Cain's cockamamie plan would cost me more. Of course, Cain would NEVER get this through Congress. He won't be elected President.
And no, he did not take a polygraph test. Not that they are noted for accuracy. Voice stress tests are not admissible in a Court, either.
-
Why are you opining on a speech that you didn't even see?
-
I did hear Cain's speech. It was just a denial. There was nothing even remotely awesome about it.
He is still a blowhard and a crackpot.
-
Where and when did you hear Cain's speech? You don't have cable. It wasn't broadcast on national tv. It was a 30 minute address, including an opening by his attorney Lin Wood. How did you hear it?
-
All right , I am starting to need a definition on "blowhard".
-
<<Back when I was a lawyer I handled several sexual harassment suits. None of mine settled for less than the high end of six figures.>> (Erick Erickson)
This guy isn't even a practicing lawyer. His status with the State Bar Association is "inactive." Doing the math starting with a 1975 birth date and little else available, it is extremely doubtful that his entire experience in the practice of law lasted more than seven years. The Wikipedia bio doesn't mention anything about his career in the law, not even the firm he worked for or whether he was a sole practitioner.
The only knowledge we have of any legal activity on his part is his immortal legal opinion that "The nation loses the only goat-fucking child molester to ever serve on the Supreme Court in David Souter's retirement." As a journalist, we have his memorable confession that his public opinions are tailored to fit those of his bosses. In this case, we can only guess at his bosses' opinion of the accusers of Herm the Perv. There are other recorded examples of his journalistic dishonesty and lack of ethics. There is no point in going on, because it would be beyond shooting the messenger. This is a messenger who has been shot, blown up and run over by gigantic earth-moving machines. All I can say, Ami, is that in picking this piece of unadulterated shit to provide his considered legal opinion on anything, you could not have picked worse. (Source: Wikipedia bio, "Erick Erickson")
But let's look at his opinion anyway. "Several" (three or four?) sexual harassment claims settling "in the high end of six figures" are close enough to the low end of seven figures to qualify as million dollar claims. How a guy barely out of law school lands not one but "several" such claims indicates to me that he was working on someone else's files in a relatively menial capacity. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But there's a world of difference between million dollar sexual harassment claims and "nuisance value" claims. From all that I've seen - - and jerk-off doesn't give us much to go on - - he has absolutely NO experience in nuisance-value claims and is talking out of his ass. Senior counsel with million-dollar claims to pursue don't waste their time on the small stuff and Erickson has no more idea of the small stuff than he does of how to speak of a retiring Supreme Court justice.
<<"Reading about these two complaints, my gut reaction to them is that settling for five figures, which could be as little as $10,000.00 and as high as $99,999, was 'go away' money.>>
Yeah, 100K is go-away money. Wow, duuude, what have YOU been smoking?
<<"If the Chief Executive Officer of the National Restaurant Association, at the time one of the top 25 trade associations in Washington, D.C., were sexually harassing someone, that someone could get a lot of money.>>
NEWS FLASH, Asshole. The CEO wasn't sexually harassing anyone at the time the settlement was signed, his ass was already long gone from the premises. There was nothing to cover up anymore. If anything it should have been a source of pride to the NRA that as soon as the pervert's harassment was revealed, he was gone in the blink of an eye before a settlement was concluded and approved by all parties concerned.
<< It just strikes me that a settlement for less than six figures is money paid to deal with the nuisances of an employee fired or otherwise let go who decided to raise the specter of harassment to get more money to leave without causing a scene.">>
And it just strikes me that in relying on Erick Erickson to provide such an opinion, you have selected an individual who has neither the knowledge nor the experience not the integrity to provide a reliable opinion on anything at all. Strangely enough, Joel P. Bennett, who really IS an expert in such matters approved the settlement on behalf of his client and has since stated publicly that it was a settlement of an internal claim of sexual harassment and was not a severance agreement. The facts that the harassment caused only "discomfort" and not lasting harm, that no physical assault was alleged and that the perp was swiftly booted out of this office were all significant in removing the motives to make a "go-away" payment here. Erickson is a total clown and an ass-hole and Bennett is a real pro - - if he says this was a settlement of a claim for sexual harassment, and if a lawyer of his calibre negotiates it, I believe it represents fair value for harassment in the circumstances, whatever the ass-hole Erickson says about it.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/11/joel-bennett-lawyer-for-cain-accuser-releases-statement/ (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/11/joel-bennett-lawyer-for-cain-accuser-releases-statement/)
-
<< It just strikes me that a settlement for less than six figures is money paid to deal with the nuisances of an employee fired or otherwise let go who decided to raise the specter of harassment to get more money to leave without causing a scene.">>
And it just strikes me that in relying on Erick Erickson to provide such an opinion, you have selected an individual who has neither the knowledge nor the experience not the integrity to provide a reliable opinion on anything at all.
Oh, the irony 8)
-
<<Oh the irony.>>
Oh, the emptiness. Oh the failure to address even one argument, even one fact , in a post packed with both.
Oh the hypocrisy of someone who claims time and again that the "facts" are missing, that the "facts" are kryptonite, but when presented with facts, runs from them as if they were . . . well, Kryptonite.
OTOH, sirs, maybe you SHOULD stick to your meaningless, pathetic, empty, transparent one-liners and spare yourself further embarrassment.
-
<<Oh the irony.>>
Oh, the emptiness.
I wouldn't call your comments empty, just ironic in how easily anyone can apply your opinion on opinions, upon yours
And you don't really want to step on the hypocrisy crap any more than you have, as you rationalize away garbage far worse that Clinton performed, using your "simply unbelievable" standard, while you try to lynch Cain for daring to not be a part of the liberal plantation, and a slave to their ideology
-
Oh, get off it!
No one wants to lynch Cain.
We just question his qualifications serve as president vs his qualifications to retire in comfort to Sun City.
-
Sure they do....with a PR rope. Any black that doesn't stay on the liberal plantation requires such. Even if it requires believing a 95% unbelievable accusation
-
You are far more unbelievable than 95%.
You constantly spout this stupid ratbag rightwing crap about how Black people are enslaved. No one with a speck of reason believes this drivel. No matter how many times you say it, it is still garbage.
-
I'm not the one spouting racist uncle tom garbage
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz110411dAPC20111103064517.jpg)
-
Now you spout illustrated ratbag reactionary garbage.
You convince no one.
-
No, I actually convince no one of the lunatic left. But that's pretty much a given, which I've already accepted
-
<<Even if it requires believing a 95% unbelievable accusation>>
What's TRULY unbelievable is this ongoing "95% reliable" bullshit based on pure junk science which no court in the country accepts.
Otherwise, 4 different women coming forward against this one guy is in and of itself 95% believable evidence that he is a serial abuser of women.
-
George Washington has told us 80,000 times, and Alexander Hamilton has told us 8000 times and Ben Franklin has told us 800 times that something is fishy abut Herman Cain and women.
Abe Lincoln adds that he has told us 16,000 times and Ulysses Grant has told us 1,600 times.
-
George Washington has told us 80,000 times, and Alexander Hamilton has told us 8000 times and Ben Franklin has told us 800 times that something is fishy abut Herman Cain and women.
Abe Lincoln adds that he has told us 16,000 times and Ulysses Grant has told us 1,600 times.
They speak of the motive there might be to tell such a lie.
-
Honest Abe and George Washington would never tell a lie.