DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BSB on November 02, 2011, 08:33:27 AM
-
Last night on PBS's Newshour Cain said, "China is seeking Nuclear capability ". Let me repeat that,"China is >>>>>>>seeking<<<<<<<< nuclear capability."
This guy is running for president of the United States in a world that is fraught with danger and he doesn't know that China has had nuclear weapons for 50 years. That's bad, very bad.
BSB
-
tsk tsk
-
This guy is running for president of the United States in a world that is fraught with danger and he doesn't know that China has had nuclear weapons for 50 years. That's bad, very bad.
Nuclear *aircraft carriers*, which they don't currently have. Not weapons.
Reading the full quote explains it.
-
No, you have to see the video. When he says they're seeking nuclear capabilty he's talking about weapons not aircraft carriers.
BSB
Hey BT, things still good on Main St?
-
I saw the video. He was talking about nuclear powered aircraft carriers, just like he has said in other interviews he has given on the topic.
-
I saw the whole interview on the Newshour last night. The statements ran close together but they were two different comments about China. First that they were seeking nuclear capability, clearly implying nuclear weapons, then he skipped to aircraft carriers. The two were not related other than they were both about China.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Cain+on+nuclear+capability+and+China (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Cain+on+nuclear+capability+and+China)
-
The statements ran close together but they were two different comments about China.
"Close together"? They were two parts of the same sentence. How much "closer together" could they possibly be? When he mentions "developing nuclear capability" and "aircraft carriers like ours" in the same sentence, I take that to mean "nuclear powered aircraft carriers".
-
If one is going to take things in context of course. But if one's goal is to demean or denigrate, or try to find fault with Cain, then by mandate, he had to have been referring to nuclear power and carriers seperately, context be damned. Oh, and keep referring to him as a pervert, minus any facts to back it up, outside of anonymous hearsay
-
Last night on PBS's Newshour Cain said, "China is seeking Nuclear capability ". Let me repeat that,"China is >>>>>>>seeking<<<<<<<< nuclear capability."
This guy is running for president of the United States in a world that is fraught with danger and he doesn't know that China has had nuclear weapons for 50 years. That's bad, very bad.
BSB
How long has it been since you cleaned the earwax from your ears?
-
Hey BT, things still good on Main St?
Must be. They broke ground on 5 new homes in the subdivision in the last 10 days. Good for the builders, suppliers and workers. Maybe not so good for the folks wanting to sell their homes in the same subdivision.
-
Well, I can certainly understand why you guys would need to pretend he meant something other than what he did.
Obviously Cain isn't very serious about being president if he's 50 years behind on foreign policy and isn't bothering to try and catch up.
Jesus, imagine not knowing that China has had nukes for decades? Too busy harassing the women folk I guess.
BSB
-
But if one's goal is to demean or denigrate, or try to find fault with Cain, then by mandate, he had to have been referring to nuclear power and carriers seperately, context be damned. Oh, and keep referring to him as a pervert, minus any facts to back it up, outside of anonymous hearsay
-
Well, I can certainly understand why you guys would need to pretend he meant something other than what he did.
Obviously Cain isn't very serious about being president if he's 50 years behind on foreign policy and isn't bothering to try and catch up.
Jesus, imagine not knowing that China has had nukes for decades? Too busy harassing the women folk I guess.
BSB
and who did you vote for in 2008? Don't bother answering, it was Obama. Enough said.
-
BT
What do the homes go for in that subdivision, on average?
BSB
-
180-200k
-
Yeah, I'm interested in the different costs of a home around the country.
-
A website called Zillow (http://www.zillow.com/), albeit not extrememly accurate in purchasing a home, can give a fairly nice sized ballpark of homesites, and their costs
-
How an aircraft carrier is POWERED does not threaten the US. The source of locomotion of the carrier is really unimportant, since any sort of carrier can cross the bloody ocean, and they can all be sunk with aircraft or even drones.
Cain is incompetent about foreign affairs. And his Ooze oozey becki beki stan stan comment shows that he is uninterested in becoming informed.
Butter him up, he's toast.
-
For someone not to grasp the importance of how naval vessels are powered, is the height of ignorance :o
-
A nuclear sub has a clear advantage over an oil powered one, as it can sail around undetected for months. With satellites, a nuclear carrier has no serious advantage. It's not like they can hide all day underwater and only surface at night.
The US could easily spot any carrier coming close to our coasts, or anywhere. An attack like Pearl Harbor is impossible now because of the satellites.
Cain shows little knowledge of foreign affairs, and no interest in informing himself. He is not going to make it.
-
Detection isn't the issue, and never has been in regards to how naval ships are powered. Care to try again?
-
Where do you get t5his nonsense?
Detection is what counts, since a ship must move slowly, and all ships can be sunk with aircraft.
In events between major powers, navies and ships are obsolete as weapons of war. They are still useful ate threatening puny countries like Syria or Oman or Somalia and for humanitarian disasters. But the time of major naval battles over.
Tell us how China having a nuclear carrier makes it a greater threat than China having a recommissioned old Soviet oil-fueled carrier.
-
Now you're really demonstrating ignorance. Ships can't be "hidden", like subs can. So, the nuclear power to a sub a far different matter, to that of a naval vessel, especially the size of an Aircraft Carrier. Now, the Navy is working on some version of "stealth ships", but how they are powered remains a non-issue
Here's a hint as to the issue.......can you guess how many tons of fuel a typical non-nuclear powered Aircraft carrier requires?? Can you guess how much space on an otherwise already cramped ship, it would take up??
If you can figure that out, compared to the same space requirements in powering a nuclear powered aircraft carrier, you'll start to grasp the importance of nuclear power to naval ships, especially carriers
-
I grasp that an aircraft carrier has to carry aircraft, and serve as an airstrip as well. I do not think that tiny aircraft carriers are actually possible, unless the Chinese are willing to use midget airplanes with midget and dwarf pilots.
With 1.3 billion people, China probably has the largest supply of midgets and dwarves in the world. Midget carriers are always a possibility. And who knows? they could be breeding flying monkeys as well.
-
What the hell are you talking about?...midgit planes?...dwarves?? Get back to us, when you're ready to re-enter an adult conversation, and the issue of nuclear powered aircraft carriers, and why that's a HUGE asset to one, vs a non-nuclear powered one
-
XO >> Cain shows little knowledge of foreign affairs, and no interest in informing himself. He is not going to make it."
Correct, and I'll go a step further. He appears to be proud of that fact that has no knowledge of foreign affairs. He sees it as a selling point. What's up with that?
BSB
-
To coin a phrase, "It's the economy, stupid". Plus, that's also why you have advisors. His economic & business selling point is what's been so effective at making him a top tier candidate, and now why folks are trying to drag him down with these unsubstantiated sexual uncomfortability accusations. Present company included
So, taking the unsubstantiated rumors out of the equation again, why do you hate him so much, B?
-
I don't hate him at all. In fact as I said in another thread, he is very likeable.
BSB
-
So, perhaps we can dispense with the all-to-frequent non-substantiated pervert remarks, for this likable man. At least until we actually have some basis to the accusation
-
It is NOT a huge asset. It is like comparing cavalry riding Indian ponies with cavalries riding Arabian horses.
Carriers are obsolete, because naval flotillas are by there very nature, (visible to satellites) and (2) sinkable by aircraft.
A second Pearl Harbor will never happen, so long as there are satellites.
You have yet to say why one Chinese nuclear carrier is a greater threat than an ordinary Chinese carrier.
-
It IS a HUGE asset, otherwise our country wouldn't have perfected the use, and already answered the why a Nuclear Chinese Carrier is by far a better military asset to China, than a non-nuclear version
And to claim that Carriers and their battle groups are "obsolete", you best hide that level of ignorance, if you find yourself around anyone, such as the President, who's ususal 1st question, when a global crisis occurs, is where's our nearest Carrier??
And here's an FYI, you can stop with the straman of China attacking the U.S. No one ever claimed such, be it Cain or myself.
-
The U.S. should be less concerned about China's economic potential than by the military threat it poses. Three Chinese spies were recently indicted in the U.S. for conspiring to steal numerous naval warship technologies. This summer China and Russia participated in a week-long joint military exercise. China's build up of nuclear, military and space technologies to rival the U.S., and its saber-rattling over Taiwan's independence, signals a commitment to more red, not green.
http://www.economicfreedomcoalition.com/news/press-opinion-120305.asp (http://www.economicfreedomcoalition.com/news/press-opinion-120305.asp)
-
An oil fired Carrier would cost less than half as much as an atomic powered carrier , and be just as usefull for supporting operations near the homeland.
The advantage of nuclear power is range, China wants to have more projectable power.
Not likly that they will build the ten to sixteen carriers needed for a serious threat to the US fleet , they could be a bigger threat, to the US fleet, with a set of long range stealthy bombers.(somebody look into that?)
Likely the need for a carrier is prestige and projected power, just like ours. They don't need to equal the US fleet in order to become usefull , they will overmatch 80% of the worlds navys by having one nuclear carrier.
-
Assuming this is accurate, or even mostly accurate (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/01/cain-on-china-theyre-trying-to-develop-nuclear-capability/comment-page-5/#comment-5053611), then Cain couldn't possibly have not known China was a nuclear power, and was just misspeaking (as usual).
Herman Cain spent the Vietnam war evaluating the capabilities of the Chinese to deliver a nuclear weapon onto the heads of our forces in South Vietnam.
He examined the test launches of the Dongfeng 1 (SS-1) and plotted out the trajectories for a 500kg warheads.
When China started testing the Dongfeng 2 (CSS-1) Cain plotted out the trajectories and capabilities of it’s delivery of 15 kiloton nuclear weapons.
Both of these missiles were provided to the PRC by the Soviets, Cain analysed data from the Russian test launches and determined the risk to U.S. troops in SE Asia.
Cain also observed the development of China’s first domestically produced missile, Dongfeng 3 (CSS-2) and plotted out it’s use with China’s 15-20KT fissile devices as well as China’s new thermonuclear devices.
Finally, Cain was involved in the determination that China’s Dongfeng 4 (CSS-3) was capable of delivering both fissile and thermonuclear devices to both Moscow and Guam as well as cover the entire deployment of U.S. forces in SE Asia.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/323293.php (http://ace.mu.nu/archives/323293.php)
-
They don't need to equal the US fleet in order to become usefull , they will overmatch 80% of the worlds Navies by having one nuclear carrier.
=====================================
That is indeed true. As a weapon of war between major powers, aircraft carriers are obsolete. But most world crises involve piddly little countries.
China projecting her power is a threat to the US projecting its power.If there is an earthquake, tsunami, volcano, typhoon or hurricane problem and the US sends a hospital ship (or a carrier), it serves us as a propaganda tool. But suppose China sends one as well. Then the US loses some of that prestige. But I still fail to see why a Chinese nuclear carrier is better in any way, other than perhaps operating expense, than an oil-fueled one. The question was NOT "asked and answered" It was not answered at all in any way that makes sense.
-
Assuming this is accurate, or even mostly accurate (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/01/cain-on-china-theyre-trying-to-develop-nuclear-capability/comment-page-5/#comment-5053611), then Cain couldn't possibly have not known China was a nuclear power, and was just misspeaking (as usual).
Herman Cain spent the Vietnam war evaluating the capabilities of the Chinese to deliver a nuclear weapon onto the heads of our forces in South Vietnam.
He examined the test launches of the Dongfeng 1 (SS-1) and plotted out the trajectories for a 500kg warheads.
When China started testing the Dongfeng 2 (CSS-1) Cain plotted out the trajectories and capabilities of it’s delivery of 15 kiloton nuclear weapons.
Both of these missiles were provided to the PRC by the Soviets, Cain analysed data from the Russian test launches and determined the risk to U.S. troops in SE Asia.
Cain also observed the development of China’s first domestically produced missile, Dongfeng 3 (CSS-2) and plotted out it’s use with China’s 15-20KT fissile devices as well as China’s new thermonuclear devices.
Finally, Cain was involved in the determination that China’s Dongfeng 4 (CSS-3) was capable of delivering both fissile and thermonuclear devices to both Moscow and Guam as well as cover the entire deployment of U.S. forces in SE Asia.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/323293.php (http://ace.mu.nu/archives/323293.php)
Dave heard what he heard so none of that matters. According to Dave, Cain doesn't have a clue about China or foreign affairs.
It's truly amazing how people can educate themselves with truth but so often rely on the wrong sources of information. Google is a good start.
As in the X Files, the truth is out there.
-
I guess perception really is the key:
Did Cain mean by developing "building up" or did he mean by developing "initiating".
His record shows that he meant building up.
The records of those folks at MSNBC who had great fun at his expense shows they wanted it to mean initiating, because that better fits their narrative.
-
Cain does not appear to know rather a great deal of the truth. Not only that, he seems proud of his ignorance.
-
But I still fail to see why a Chinese nuclear carrier is better in any way, other than perhaps operating expense, than an oil-fueled one. The question was NOT "asked and answered" It was not answered at all in any way that makes sense.
Consider this , oil fired carriers could be ready sooner and cost less to operate near China, the main advantage of atomic power for a carrier is range.
To me this means that this is not being built to support the invasion of Tiawan or to defend the homeland or to intimidate Japan or to grasp the Spratley Islands. These purposes would be well served with a brace of smaller , cheaper carriers that could be numorous and usefull soon.
Atomic powered carrier means long term and long range goals. It will pull into port all over the world looking impressive, it will be present at every crisis of any kind, it can impress allies , but if it were oil fired and a large number I would think Tiawan.
-
I guess perception really is the key:
Did Cain mean by developing "building up" or did he mean by developing "initiating".
His record shows that he meant building up.
The records of those folks at MSNBC who had great fun at his expense shows they wanted it to mean initiating, because that better fits their narrative.
That's why anything they say I won't believe. The MSM could say Cain raped his dog and I would still vote for him. And clearly many people are thinking like me. We know he's a bright go so they can parse he words all they want but it only makes them look like idiots.
-
I guess perception really is the key:
Did Cain mean by developing "building up" or did he mean by developing "initiating".
His record shows that he meant building up.
The records of those folks at MSNBC who had great fun at his expense shows they wanted it to mean initiating, because that better fits their narrative.
That's why anything they say I won't believe. The MSM could say Cain raped his dog and I would still vote for him. And clearly many people are thinking like me. We know he's a bright go so they can parse he words all they want but it only makes them look like idiots.
Indeed!
It can't be that Clinton can get a pass on all that he was accused of and then another Presidential canadate gets a much milder accusation with much less evidence and is supposed to be troubled.
Hey Herman , tell them to bring proof or get ignored.
-
A hospital ship with a helipad is more useful for any sort of humanitarian service, and far cheaper than a carrier. Fighter jets are useless in dealing with natural disasters.
No one who is rescued and treated on a carrier gives a crap about the mode of propulsion of the carrier. No one cares if the taxi that takes them to the airport is a gasoline powered car, an Diesel powered car or even an electric one. Nor do they care whether it is FWD, RWD or AWD.
Who actually gives a flying eff about the Spratley Islands? Six countries claim them. I suppose if they decide to drill for oil there someday, they can work out some arrangement. But a nuclear carrier would be of no greater advantage there that the cheapest alternative, a reconditioned Soviet one.
-
But a nuclear carrier would be of no greater advantage there that the cheapest alternative, a reconditioned Soviet one.
That is my point.
Range and prestige.
-
Do you think someone whose life was saved after a natural disaster on a reconditioned Soviet carrier in China's navy would discount the fact that they were saved on a ship propelled by bunker oil? Would they feel more impressed had the carrier been equipped with nuclear propulsion?
I don't think I would actually care. It would be like saying "Dr. Chen saved my life, but it was not a big deal, because he drives a Yaris and not a Lexus/Mercedes/Audi/Beemer."
-
Do you think someone whose life was saved after a natural disaster on a reconditioned Soviet carrier in China's navy would discount the fact that they were saved on a ship propelled by bunker oil? Would they feel more impressed had the carrier been equipped with nuclear propulsion?
I don't think I would actually care. It would be like saying "Dr. Chen saved my life, but it was not a big deal, because he drives a Yaris and not a Lexus/Mercedes/Audi/Beemer."
Range
Range Range
Range Range
Range Range
Range Range
Range Range
Range Range
Range Range
Range Range
Range Range
Range Range
Range Range
Range Range
Range Range
Range Range
Range Range
Range
Note that word!
An oil fired carrier would stay in Chinas home neighborhood.
-
Plane, have they looked into Solar Panels?
Obama's energy dept will likely FULLY fund the venture so the world can be saved from Global Warming. Plus it would create jobs too.
-
An oil fired carrier would stay in China's home neighborhood.
=============================================
Do US carriers propelled by oil stay in our neighborhood?
If the US Navy and the Japanese Navy had stayed in its neighborhood, had stayed in its own neighborhood, there would have been no WWII in the Pacific.
-
An oil fired carrier would stay in China's home neighborhood.
=============================================
Do US carriers propelled by oil stay in our neighborhood?
If the US Navy and the Japanese Navy had stayed in its neighborhood, had stayed in its own neighborhood, there would have been no WWII in the Pacific.
The US Navy refuels at sea, better than other navys.
During WWII this developed into a big advantage.
I watched Soviet ships refuel at sea in 1980 , they were pathetic.
If the Chineese want an Atomic carrier , they want the range, the prestige is there too.
-
This desire for an atomic carrier is more like a keeping up with the Joneses sort of thing. The Chinese Admirals would certainly like more prestige. The Chinese are not noted for aquatic derring-do, the Chinese Navy pretty much outranks the Austrian Navy or the Swiss Navy, but the Argentine Navy has somewhat more glory, as does the Brazilian Navy.
I agree that the Chinese want prestige. But it is questionable that the expenditure will ever be worth it.
-
They want more than prestige. They want more control over shipping lanes, a presence in the gulf, the abilit to project power through out Asia, etc. An aircraft carrier, and its flotilla, are very impressive, they represent the country of origin as nothing else can. But they are first and foremost a floating platform from which to operate in areas far from home, without airfields, bases, and so forth.
BSB
-
I tend to agree with plane on this carrier issue. China needs longer range for projection of power.
A shining example of China's need to project power was in Libya. Thirty thousand Chinese oilfield workers were airlifted out of Libya as the war there heated up. The Chinese couldn't do a God-damn thing to protect their oil interests there against NATO. A couple of Chinese carriers in the Mediterranean would have made all the difference to the Chinese and Ghaddafi. Carriers with fuel tankers in tow are just presenting the fuel tankers as extra targets for the enemy; at the very least, the carriers' jets have to busy themselves with the defence of the tankers, which when they're already far from home is a waste of their resources. Even worse if the tankers are sunk or burned, where the hell are the carriers then? Much better that the carriers are nuclear-fueled.
As China's economy grows even bigger over the next two decades, they are going to need lots and lots more oil - - this fucking bullshit of the U.S. and its NATO partners chasing the Chinese out of every foreign oil patch they invest in is going to have to stop, and stop fast. Hence the rebuilt carrier and the three more soon to be built from scratch.
As for sirs' claims that the sexual abuse allegations against Cain are unfounded: Bullshit! Cain is trapped in his own lies, first that there was no settlement, then that it was small, "only" a few thousand bucks, then it turns out that there WAS a settlement and it was for one of the women $35,000 or a YEAR'S pay, not the "two or three months' pay" that Cain first said it was.
This can get messier. As the media presses for the victims' stories, Cain will be forced into the position of refusing to release them from any confidentiality agreements they may have signed. He can't win - - it's "cover-up" if he succeeds in silencing the victims, and it's a messy situation if they are allowed to voice their accusations in public. There's also the third victim to consider. What the hell is SHE going to say and when if ever will she be dropping her bombshell?
Personally, if I were Cain, I'd let the whole story air now - - the accusations don't seem to go beyond suggestive talk, which a lot of people (myself included) don't consider to be such a BFD, especially when, as seems to be the case here, all parties were drinking fairly heavily at the time. I think, as long as there was no groping or force involved, there could even be a sympathy vote for Cain, as in "WTF is the BFD here? This guy is being crucified for nothing." OTOH, if Cain obstructs the release of the victims' stories (by refusing to release them from their confidentiality agreements,) then people will start to call him "pervert" with some justification, the thinking being, "Well, if there weren't something to cover up, he'd release the victims from the confidentiality agreement."
The bottom line is that a $35,000 settlement (which Cain already lied about at least twice) is not chickenshit. At this point, most people who aren't totally brain-dead would probably conclude that there was some basis to the accusations.
-
Only to those who want there to be one
-
Cain doesn't have the power to release the agreements. He isn't a party to them. The agreements are between the National Restaurant Association and the women.
-
Cain is trapped in his own lies, first that there was no settlement, then that it was small, "only" a few thousand bucks, then it turns out that there WAS a settlement and it was for one of the women $35,000 or a YEAR'S pay, not the "two or three months' pay" that Cain first said it was.
I don't think he lied. As he recollected what happened he was honest about it. He hasn't ducked the question on any interviews.
This whole ordeal has made me want to support Cain even more because I am pissed off about the unfairness of the whole thing. And I doubt I'm the only one.
-
Have you noticed since the "storm" RR?....Cain's donations have increased substantially, and he's now outpolling Romney by 3points 8)
-
This is a non-issue because Cain is a non-issue. Further, the guy should go home so the party can get down to the business at hand. And the business at hand for the Republicans is putting together a team that can defeat the present White House occupant.
BSB
-
For sure, those who WANT to find a basis for believing in the accusations against Cain will find it in the $35K settlement.
Let's consider those who DON'T want to find a basis for believing the accusations or don't care one way or the other, or who are just interested in finding out what really happened - - only if they were fucking morons could they possibly believe that the $35K settlement itself was made for a baseless charge. That was a full year's pay to the woman who got it. As I said, it's far from chickenshit, especially if there was no assault involved.
Bottom line is, the $35K settlement should indicate that the claim was far from "baseless" AND Cain's reluctance to speak the truth on this matter - - that he knew of no settlement, then that he DID know of an "agreement" but that an "agreement" is not a "settlement" - - and then that the sum paid was a few thousand dollars for just a few months' pay, and then it turns out it was $35K for a full year's pay? Come on!!! The $35K settlement alone is a strong indication that the accusations were far from baseless; add to that Cain's lies piled one on top of another and you've got a fairly good indication (a) that the accusations were solidly based and (b) that Cain is just another God-damned liar, no worse than any other politician in that regard, but certainly no better. Oh, and then there is the third accuser, AND the former staffer who claims to have witnessed one of the harrassments in front of a restaurant.
Baseless? Baseless, my ass.
BT - - You are correct, the Restaurant Association has the right to release the women from the confidentiality agreement. Cain still has a right to request his personal file from the Association which would include notice of the accusations made against him by the women. He probably also has the right to demand the Association's record of its investigation of the allegations. He can also provide a written direction to the Association to release the women from their non-disclosure clauses. My guess is that he will do NONE of these things, nor anything else that the women's lawyers or the media's lawyers may suggest that he do to facilitate the release of the allegations and the investigation. He will do everything that he can to ensure that this bone stays buried. The rest of us can draw our own conclusions as to his motives for so doing.
-
Yeah that's why they hold primaries. To choose the guy who will go up against the incumbent. I believe Iowa is Jan 3rd 2012, followed by NH on Jan 10, followed by SC Jan 17. Things will be clearer then,
Meanwhile down ticket the tea party can work on bolstering their numbers in the house and senate.
-
For sure, those who WANT to find a basis for believing in the accusations against Cain will find it in the $35K settlement.
Which again is between the association and the "women", not Cain. The amount is consistent with a termination. The current record to date has some woman being made to feel "uncomfortable". HARDLY the hands of a rapist and thug, who then became heralded as one of our supposed best Presidents....ironically labed as our "1st black president"
This is a non-issue because Cain is a non-issue. Further, the guy should go home so the party can get down to the business at hand. And the business at hand for the Republicans is putting together a team that can defeat the present White House occupant.
And so far polling has ANY GOP candidate beating Obama, which would include *gasp* Michelle Bachmann.
Sorry to tell you this, but Cain's grasp of economic and business dynamics are a dead-on issue, as it relates to the current mess our present White House occupant, has put us in, and what the country is currently starving for
-
For sure, those who WANT to find a basis for believing in the accusations against Cain will find it in the $35K settlement.
Let's consider those who DON'T want to find a basis for believing the accusations or don't care one way or the other, or who are just interested in finding out what really happened - - only if they were fucking morons could they possibly believe that the $35K settlement itself was made for a baseless charge. That was a full year's pay to the woman who got it. As I said, it's far from chickenshit, especially if there was no assault involved.
Bottom line is, the $35K settlement should indicate that the claim was far from "baseless" AND Cain's reluctance to speak the truth on this matter - - that he knew of no settlement, then that he DID know of an "agreement" but that an "agreement" is not a "settlement" - - and then that the sum paid was a few thousand dollars for just a few months' pay, and then it turns out it was $35K for a full year's pay? Come on!!! The $35K settlement alone is a strong indication that the accusations were far from baseless; add to that Cain's lies piled one on top of another and you've got a fairly good indication (a) that the accusations were solidly based and (b) that Cain is just another God-damned liar, no worse than any other politician in that regard, but certainly no better. Oh, and then there is the third accuser, AND the former staffer who claims to have witnessed one of the harrassments in front of a restaurant.
Baseless? Baseless, my ass.
BT - - You are correct, the Restaurant Association has the right to release the women from the confidentiality agreement. Cain still has a right to request his personal file from the Association which would include notice of the accusations made against him by the women. He probably also has the right to demand the Association's record of its investigation of the allegations. He can also provide a written direction to the Association to release the women from their non-disclosure clauses. My guess is that he will do NONE of these things, nor anything else that the women's lawyers or the media's lawyers may suggest that he do to facilitate the release of the allegations and the investigation. He will do everything that he can to ensure that this bone stays buried. The rest of us can draw our own conclusions as to his motives for so doing.
35-45K is chicken feed in these types of suits where the insurance company pays for the case to co away. And it might be that the insurance company has the final say on the disposition of those records.
The worst thing i have heard so far is that Cain supposedly told a female staff member of an Iowa radio host that she sure was pretty. The Mandingo musk must have been overwhelming. Sheesh. How dare a black man speak with such familiarity to a white woman. Let's get a friggin rope boys.
-
I've already said that if the "harrassment" was limited to suggestive remarks, it is NBD. I think that most voters feel that way too. There was too much "political correctness" edging its way into private discourse between men and women, and I think the public understands that and resents it.
My basic points were NOT that Cain is a rapist and a thug, but that he's not too bright, he tries to lie himself out of awkward situations, and that the longer he tries, actively or passively, to keep the allegations buried, the worse it looks for him.
-
Yea, it was so bad for Clinton, he became President. Oh, the horror
-
What lies? Do you realize that Cain might not have been privy to the details of the settlement?
What you are faulting him for is being as honest and forthright as he could be with the information he had.
My problem is that his staff knew this was coming for 10 days and didn't have a plan in place to handle it. Of course that would mean that Cain would be acting just like a beltway politician and that really isn't who he is and i don't think that is what the GOP voters - the 75% who aren't sold on Romney - are looking for.
-
Right, BT, the voting is for deciding who will represent the party, not who's going to have a reality TV show, or sell the most books, or who the biggest pervert is.
BSB
-
And again with the pervert perversion ::)
-
Right, BT, the voting is for deciding who will represent the party, not who's going to have a reality TV show, or sell the most books, or who the biggest pervert is.
BSB
Now you are catching on.
-
<<Yea, it was so bad for Clinton, he became President. Oh, the horror>>
It's not an insurmountable obstacle, but Clinton had willing partners, which made the offence a lot less objectionable to most people, women voters in particular.
Sexual harrassment of a female employee leading to complaints by the female employee against the boss (which takes a certain amount of courage on the employee's part) is kind of a despicable act, and as of this morning there are three allegations of this outstanding against him. It's sad and desperate, and something most bosses have enough self-control to avoid. I think most people can appreciate the difference between Clinton accepting what was offered to him on a silver platter and enjoying it as one of the perks of the office, versus Cain sadly trying to hit on three different women who not only did not offer him anything in the first place, but were creeped out enough by him to lay formal complaints in two cases and to come forward now in a third.
Ridiculous and very naive to compare this bush-league sexual predator to Clinton, a Rhodes' scholar and a veritable babe magnet, who RETAINED the women's vote probably in part for the same factors that led Monica to show him her thong in the first place. Cain is a repulsive creep whom female voters will reject for the same reason that individual women respond to his unwanted advances with revulsion and official complaints. Women who hear of Bill's adventures with Monica are probably subconsciously wishing they had been in Monica's shoes at the time, whereas women who hear of Cain's exploits are just plain repulsed. He won't get the women's vote because he's a perv and he won't get the black vote because he's a Tom.
Afraid it's game over for this bullshit artist. He's had his 15 minutes of fame, and he's not even smart enough to play his cards right for the extra minute or two he might get from it. I'd love to see Obama get his lying ass whipped at election time, but I don't think Uncle Tom Cain is the man to do it.
-
<<What lies? Do you realize that Cain might not have been privy to the details of the settlement?
<<What you are faulting him for is being as honest and forthright as he could be with the information he had. >>
LMFAO. Sure. He knew there'd been an AGREEMENT but, see, a SETTLEMENT is not an AGREEMENT, so when he was asked if there was a SETTLEMENT, he denied it, even though he had been aware of the AGREEMENT.
How dumb do you think those voters really are? OK, I know, they voted for Bush AFTER he had completed one term in office on a stolen election, but still, are they really dumb enough to . . . ? OK, I get your point.
Still and all . . . "honest and forthright?" Gimme a break. He knew God-damn well his employer had settled the claims against him, and since it concerned his reputation strongly enough to warrant a non-disclosure clause, you can damn well bet that he'd want to know every fucking detail. That is was a YEAR'S salary, not a "few months if anything." The guy lies in your face, not that that is necessarily a bad thing, lately in fact it seems like it's a job requirement.
-
Apparently you are not interested in the facts. Best just to put this Uncle Tom in his place.
Right?
-
<<Apparently you are not interested in the facts. Best just to put this Uncle Tom in his place. >>
Actually, I just gave you a whole shit-load of facts, which you apparently prefer to ignore so that you can focus on the "Uncle Tom" issues all over again. Far better, in your view, to engage me on matters of opinion(is "Tom" a racist accusation or not) than on any of the facts which I raised.
<<Right?>>
[sarcasm alert!!!] - - Yeah, right.
-
<<Yea, it was so bad for Clinton, he became President. Oh, the horror>>
It's not an insurmountable obstacle, but Clinton had willing partners, which made the offence a lot less objectionable to most people, women voters in particular.
Yea, I'm sure Kathleen Willey and Jaunita Broadrick, really were willing to be mandhandled, if not assaulted :o
But you go on thinking his increasing poll #'s and donations are a definative sign of his going down in flames. Red is blue
-
Kathleen Willey? You mean the Kathleen Willey in the Wikipedia article of the same name?
<<According to Willey, during a meeting in the private study of the Oval Office, Clinton had embraced her tightly, kissed her on the mouth. Clinton denied assaulting Willey. The Clinton White House released details of 15 letters and 12 telephone messages that Willey had sent to Clinton after the alleged incident. In all of these, she appeared friendly and eager for more contact with Clinton.
<<According to Linda Tripp’s grand jury testimony, she felt Willey pursued a romance with Clinton from the start of her White House affiliation. Willey had speculated with Tripp as to how she might be able to set up an assignation between herself and the president. She routinely attended events at which Clinton would be present, wearing a black dress she believed he liked. According to Tripp’s testimony, she wondered if she and Clinton could arrange to meet in a home to which she had access, on the Chesapeake Bay.[2]>>
THAT Kathleen Willey?
Yep, there he goes again, forcing his unwanted attentions on all those poor, suffering babes who are SO creeped out by him.
-
This is a non-issue because Cain is a non-issue. Further, the guy should go home so the party can get down to the business at hand. And the business at hand for the Republicans is putting together a team that can defeat the present White House occupant.
BSB
This process causes all candidates to go through serious scrutiny and test their metal. The last one standing has gone through a lot and passed the test. This process only makes the eventual contender against Obama stronger and better at the game. I would hope that Cain not take your advice and for that matter none of the candidates should listen to chumps like you because you don't know what you are talking about.
-
Actually, I just gave you a whole shit-load of facts, which you apparently prefer to ignore so that you can focus on the "Uncle Tom" issues all over again. Far better, in your view, to engage me on matters of opinion(is "Tom" a racist accusation or not) than on any of the facts which I raised.
Sure you did. And I'm sure you can come up with a signed agreement or settlement with Cain's signature on it, for it to be factual and all.
-
Kathleen Willey?
Yea, one of the many NON-anonymous folk
-
Pesky Facts
Cain did not sign settlement, accuser's lawyer says...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57318500-503544/cain-did-not-sign-settlement-accusers-lawyer-says/%20http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-57318500-504564/cain-did-not-sign-settlement-accusers-lawyer-says/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57318500-503544/cain-did-not-sign-settlement-accusers-lawyer-says/%20http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-57318500-504564/cain-did-not-sign-settlement-accusers-lawyer-says/)
-
Looks like Cain's perversions are at best a minor issue, since seven out of ten Republicans don't give a shit anyway.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/04/has-cain-controversy-hurt-him-in-the-polls/?hpt=hp_t2 (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/04/has-cain-controversy-hurt-him-in-the-polls/?hpt=hp_t2)
PS - - the issue is not whether he signed it, but whether he knew about it. Obviously he did. Hence his ludicrous attempts, after denying the settlement, to distinguish between "settlement" and "agreement."
-
So effing what?
Plausable deniability rules here. One needs to be extremely naive to believe that Cain was unaware of his organization buying off these women with rather huge awards.
If THREE of ten Republicans DO give a shit and vote against him or simply stay home, then Cain loses. Do, as they say, the math. This is not about the nomination, it is about the general election.
If the election is seen as the philandering Negro vs the Socialist Negro, there will be a White third party candidate,and Cain is likely to lose. There are racists and there is a racist vote, and Cain will not get it.
-
Pesky Facts
Cain did not sign settlement, accuser's lawyer says...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57318500-503544/cain-did-not-sign-settlement-accusers-lawyer-says/%20http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-57318500-504564/cain-did-not-sign-settlement-accusers-lawyer-says/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57318500-503544/cain-did-not-sign-settlement-accusers-lawyer-says/%20http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-57318500-504564/cain-did-not-sign-settlement-accusers-lawyer-says/)
D'OH
-
I still think Cain's best bet is to get the NRA to release the two victims from their non-disclosure clauses (apparently the settlement to each of them was equal to or greater than their respective annual salary) so that, if it's only sexual talk in an alcohol-saturated environment, most rational people can see that it's really NBD. Cain's ongoing refusal to lance the boil seems to indicate either that he's incredibly stupid or that he's really got something that needs to be covered up. And in either event that he's a bit of a sleazeball, although that in itself is certainly no turn-off to GOP voters.
-
Looks like Cain's perversions are at best a minor issue, since seven out of ten Republicans don't give a shit anyway.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/04/has-cain-controversy-hurt-him-in-the-polls/?hpt=hp_t2 (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/04/has-cain-controversy-hurt-him-in-the-polls/?hpt=hp_t2)
PS - - the issue is not whether he signed it, but whether he knew about it. Obviously he did. Hence his ludicrous attempts, after denying the settlement, to distinguish between "settlement" and "agreement."
Not necessarily. from the linked article.
Bennett said the agreement was resolved relatively quickly, about two or three months after she complained.
That means it may have been reached after Cain left the association, and Bennett said it's conceivable that Cain didn't even know about it.
-
<<That means it may have been reached after Cain left the association, and Bennett said it's conceivable that Cain didn't even know about it.>>
Fair enough, although quite a stretch, since most people would be concerned enough to enquire, but nevertheless, how do you spin your way out of Cain's flip-flops on whether he knew if there was a settlement?
"No settlement"
"oops, well I thought you were asking about an agreement"
Like in that context there was such a huge gap between "settlement" and "agreement" and Cain "innocently" mistook the one for the other, even though the interviewer HAD asked about a "settlement."
-
The currency of journalism is credibility.
Politico is bankrupt.
-
as is a current majority in the rest of the MSM
-
Why worry over a fabricated story about Cain when nobody cared about Clinton and his bimbo eruptions. I think Clinton had an entire team of people in place to deal with and extinguish his perverted sexual escapades from becoming campaign issues.
-
The Restaurant Association paid one woman $45K and another $35K. It was clearly not a fabricated incident. It is not the incidents themselves that reveal why Cain should not be president, but his stupid and clumsy way of trying to weasel out of the whole thing with the phony confusion between "agreement" and "Settlement". There is a greater difference between beard and whiskers, car and vehicle.
It seem to me that the left is not behind this, because the time to spiring this would be three weeks before the general election IF Cain were to get the nomination.
-
The Restaurant Association paid one woman $45K and another $35K. It was clearly not a fabricated incident. It is not the incidents themselves that reveal why Cain should not be president, but his stupid and clumsy way of trying to weasel out of the whole thing with the phony confusion between "agreement" and "Settlement". There is a greater difference between beard and whiskers, car and vehicle.
It seem to me that the left is not behind this, because the time to spiring this would be three weeks before the general election IF Cain were to get the nomination.
Apparently you don't understand that frequently settlements are made for fabricated sexual harassment because it's cheaper than litigating. Too bad you live a sheltered life that does not allow you to know such easy to know facts. Anybody can make a false charge and collect a settlement; it happens all the time. The amounts you mention easily fall into this category because had there been a real case the amounts would have been into 6 figures. For a guy that claims to be the smartest man in the world you are rather dense.
-
I understand that no organization is going to shell out $80K based on no facts at all.
-
I understand that no organization is going to shell out $80K based on no facts at all.
Apparently you don't know that.
-
I understand that no organization is going to shell out $80K based on no facts at all.
Sure they will, if they think that attorney costs will exceed that amount if it went to litigation. Discovery alone could exceed $80K, not to mention the trial. I was once involved with a federal contract dispute, and the cost of discovery exceeded $120K. The case was settled after discovery but before the trial.
-
Bingo
-
Back to main issue of the thread. Cain admitted he miss-spoke on China's nuclear capabilities. He said he meant to say that China had less nuclear capability than the United States, not that they didn't have any.
BSB
P.S. New voting law: pets, such as dogs, cats, monkeys, parrots, etc., will no longer be allowed to vote in presidential races.
Well, I guess that about ends Cain's chances.
-
Yea, because that "obviously" explains the increase in both donations & his poll #'s
-
Back to main issue of the thread. Cain admitted he miss-spoke on China's nuclear capabilities. He said he meant to say that China had less nuclear capability than the United States, not that they didn't have any.
Gee that changes the narrative from didn't know china had nukes to his intent in using the word developing.
Glad he had a chance to set the record straight for those who jumped on the Cain is a dumbass bandwagon.
-
Glad he had a chance to set the record straight for those who jumped on the Cain is a dumbass bandwagon.
=========================================================
There are still a lot of people on the "Cain says dumbass things" bandwagon, however.
-
Back to main issue of the thread. Cain admitted he miss-spoke on China's nuclear capabilities. He said he meant to say that China had less nuclear capability than the United States, not that they didn't have any.
BSB
P.S. New voting law: pets, such as dogs, cats, monkeys, parrots, etc., will no longer be allowed to vote in presidential races.
Well, I guess that about ends Cain's chances.
Despite all that still you admitted to voting for Obama. Were you wearing a monkey costume at the time?
-
Glad he had a chance to set the record straight for those who jumped on the Cain is a dumbass bandwagon.
=========================================================
There are still a lot of people on the "Cain says dumbass things" bandwagon, however.
Well, considering so many facts to the contrary, not to mention that anyone at anytime can say a "dumbass thing" (excuse me...57 states Mr. President??), I think we can chalk that up to the Elvis Factor (http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/citations/elvis_factor_1/)
-
Glad he had a chance to set the record straight for those who jumped on the Cain is a dumbass bandwagon.
=========================================================
There are still a lot of people on the "Cain says dumbass things" bandwagon, however.
Well, considering so many facts to the contrary, I think we can chalk that up to the Elvis Factor (http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/citations/elvis_factor_1/)
I wonder if he will say there are 57 states like Obama.
-
;D Like I just referenced?
-
Glad he had a chance to set the record straight for those who jumped on the Cain is a dumbass bandwagon.
=========================================================
There are still a lot of people on the "Cain says dumbass things" bandwagon, however.
Probably the ones who also call him an Uncle Tom. or some other code word.
-
$80K is certainly not a trivial sum to pay and the argument that it's cheaper than discovery is ludicrous in view of the fact that there were already extensive investigation results in hand before a lawsuit had even been started. It's very unlikely that discovery costs would be anywhere near the sums mentioned by Ami if the company had already investigated all the participants and maintained records of the investigation as they certainly would have done.
If it were as easy to collect $80K as some of our posters suggest, it would be impossible to conduct business using female employees. In many cases, women won't even come forward with complaints of sexual harrassment, because they know it's a possible career-killer. Women generally won't come forward without a strong case and no lawyer would take a weak harrassment case on spec - - the fact that the women were represented by counsel is in itself some indication that counsel believed in the strength of their cases, and the payment confirms that belief.
What's hilarious is in watching the conservatives try to wriggle desperately off the inescapable conclusions that at least two solidly-based claims of sexual harrassment were not only launched against this perverted creep, but that they were settled on a non-nuisance basis as well. No, he's not a rapist or a thug, but he's still a creep and a perv. This guy is far from an innocent victim as he pretends to be. Of course, the other indication of conservatives' total divorce from the real world is their apparent inability to recognize the significance of Mr. Creepy's attempts to wriggle himself off the hook: "Settlement? NEVER. Oh . . . Agreement? Yeah, of course, there may have been some agreement." LMFAO. Come on, guys. You're giving new meaning to the words "willful blindness."
-
$80K is certainly not a trivial sum to pay and the argument that it's cheaper than discovery is ludicrous in view of the fact that there were already extensive investigation results in hand before a lawsuit had even been started. It's very unlikely that discovery costs would be anywhere near the sums mentioned by Ami if the company had already investigated all the participants and maintained records of the investigation as they certainly would have done.
If it were as easy to collect $80K as some of our posters suggest, it would be impossible to conduct business using female employees. In many cases, women won't even come forward with complaints of sexual harrassment, because they know it's a possible career-killer. Women generally won't come forward without a strong case and no lawyer would take a weak harrassment case on spec - - the fact that the women were represented by counsel is in itself some indication that counsel believed in the strength of their cases, and the payment confirms that belief.
What's hilarious is in watching the conservatives try to wriggle desperately off the inescapable conclusions that at least two solidly-based claims of sexual harrassment were not only launched against this perverted creep, but that they were settled on a non-nuisance basis as well. No, he's not a rapist or a thug, but he's still a creep and a perv. This guy is far from an innocent victim as he pretends to be. Of course, the other indication of conservatives' total divorce from the real world is their apparent inability to recognize the significance of Mr. Creepy's attempts to wriggle himself off the hook: "Settlement? NEVER. Oh . . . Agreement? Yeah, of course, there may have been some agreement." LMFAO. Come on, guys. You're giving new meaning to the words "willful blindness."
You probably missed the complainants attorney's little live show and tell on CNN minutes ago.
She chooses not to relive the moment.
She filed the complaint, very probably after Cain was gone, according to the attorneys best recollect. What they have is her statement and the settlement paperwork. No discovery, no depositions, no proof or any third parties as witnesses.
oo oo take the money and run (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFGZufk4HFs#)
-
Ouch....damn them pesky facts
-
Ouch....damn them pesky facts
Aren't these people the same ones that were OK with Clinton committing perjury? But now they are bothered by non story about Cain. The next thing to come out will be allegations that one of Cain's pubic hairs were on the top of a can of coke. Maybe one of the 3 bitches are named Anita.
-
What "pesky facts" would those be, I wonder?
That a woman happily married for 26 years doesn't see any advantage to her now to come forward on a 12-year-old incident so that she can be targeted and smeared like Anita Hill? Gee, and here I thought everyone wanted to come into the limelight so they could be attacked as a lying, money-hungry whore by a bunch of right-wing media people. What is she, crazy?
I'm not aware that the woman's reluctance to step forward into another Anita Hill media circus alters even ONE of the "pesky facts" that I have already raised. She and another woman EACH filed separate complaints of sexual harrassment, shared a total award of about 80K which is FAR from a "nuisance value" settlement, as Cain very well knew when he tried to lie his way out of this with an ever-changing story.
That she and the other victim don't want to step forward into a media circus NOW, 12 years after the event, when they've already received damages appropriate to the harrassment sustained and there's absolutely nothing in it for them, is a very understandable reaction that anyone but a right-wing nut could understand and appreciate. That it somehow invalidates the charges and the settlement already made, that it somehow wipes those facts clear off the pages of history, is something that only a totally delusional right-wing fanatic, living on some other planet, could be expected to believe.
Yeah, sirs, I expect them "pesky facts" will be around for a long, long time, but I don't expect delusional true believers like yourself to ever appreciate their real significance.
-
What "pesky facts" would those be, I wonder?
That we still have nothing more that hearsay as far as "sexual harrasment", that Cain signed nothing as it relates to any settlement, that, that its perfectly within reason to settle such cases out of court for such a small price compared to what litigation might cost, etc., etc., etc.
That this is nothing more than a distration. a MSM circus of a witchunt, spending 24/7 news cycle going after nothing more than a 20+yr hold "harrasment" accusation, while messers "happily married" Obama & Clinton got nary a touch of anythimg even remotely approacing such tenacious scrutiny, during their campaigning. Bill Ayers?? Jaunita Broaddrick? Rev Wright? Hello?? Media??
Those would be just a few of those pesky facts, that will be around for a long time
-
I think what a lot of the anti-Cain folks seem to be missing is that the National Restaurant Assoc was also a party to the complaint and that perhaps they were more worried about their exposure than the he said/she said aspects of Cain's involvement.
Settling on the cheap seems a prudent route when one considers the nature of their business.
-
I am not at all clear on what the accusation is.
Is he accused of speaking lewdly like Clairance Thomas was, or accused of rape like Clinton was?
Is the ambiguity of the accusation part of its charm?
-
He is accused of inciting feelings of awkwardness and discomfort amongst the complainants.
the new sheriff scene from blazing saddles (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upvZdVK913I#)
-
It's amazing seeing the true color coming out in these so-called diverse liberals with regards to Mr Cain.
-
MTee >>that it somehow wipes those facts clear off the pages of history, is something that only a totally delusional ....... fanatic, living on some other planet, could be expected to believe.<<
Are you talking about your pathic attempt to connect Stalin's purges to preparation for WWII?
Michael Tee: "They were the enemy of the people."
Joesph Goebbels: "Each Jew is a sworn enemy of the German people."
BSB
-
Now one of two things happened concerning Cains claim that China was trying to get nuclear weapons. A) Eiether he did miss-speak, or B) he latter was told that China, of course, already had nuclear weapons, so he claimed to have miss-spoken.
I vote for the latter.
BSB
-
Except you have already been shown that he knows that the PRC has nukes. Not only from a speech in 2005 but from his work at Purdue and with the Dept of the Navy.
-
Now one of two things happened concerning Cains claim that China was trying to get nuclear weapons. A) Eiether he did miss-speak, or B) he latter was told that China, of course, already had nuclear weapons, so he claimed to have miss-spoken.
I vote for the latter.
BSB
Too bad but people aren't interested in discussing this any further as much as you would like to control what is said and not, but you don't own this thread.
-
Interesting, BT, do have a copy of that speech attributed to him? And what did he do for the dept. of the Navy?
BSB
-
Post 31 and post 33 in this thread will provide the info you are looking for
-
<<[The "pesky facts" are that]T we still have nothing more that hearsay as far as "sexual harrasment" . . . >>
true, but it's also a "pesky fact" that most male executives can complete their term of employment without ONE allegation of sexual harrassment that leads to a hefty settlement, let alone two.
<< . . . that Cain signed nothing as it relates to any settlement>>
a totally meaningless fact since the Association was in all probability defended by its insurers under a policy that would have covered at least the senior executives, so that if Cain didn't want to incur a shitload of legal defence costs, he would have been happy to let the Association's insurers' lawyers carry the ball for him. You can bet your ass that somewhere in the internal paperwork of the law firm or firms that defended the claims, there is a retainer signed by Cain that appoints them as his attorney(s) and authorizes them to settle the matter on his behalf.
<< . . . that, that its perfectly within reason to settle such cases out of court for such a small price compared to what litigation might cost, etc., etc., etc.>>
LOL. 80K is NOT a "small price" for two sexual harrassment claims that don't go beyond allegations of verbal-level comments that leave the victim feeling merely "uncomfortable" and the so-called "costs" of the litigation, where (a) there is, as you yourself point out, absolutely zero physical or documentary evidence and (b) a complete investigation already carried out by the employer, are most likely to be in the minimal-to-low range of the scale. In such circumstances, 80K would actually be kind of a high-end settlement.
<<That this is nothing more than a distration. a MSM circus of a witchunt, spending 24/7 news cycle going after nothing more than a 20+yr hold "harrasment" accusation . . . >>
Oh, I actually agree with you on that, this is purely political in the absence of evidence of any really egregious conducts, but that is not a "pesky fact" at all, that is merely your opinion (and mine) which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of what Uncle Tom Cain did with those two victims.
<< . . . while messers "happily married" Obama & Clinton got nary a touch of anythimg even remotely approacing such tenacious scrutiny>>
Now why on earth would that surprise you? There isn't a shred of evidence that they sexually harrassed anyone ever, and the most you could ever say about Clinton was that he was a constant target of trophy hunters of all shapes and sizes.
<<Bill Ayers?? Jaunita Broaddrick? Rev Wright? Hello?? Media??>>
Hello media?? How the hell would you ever have heard even ONE of those names had it not been for the media? Hello? ? ? ? sirs? ? ? ? ?
-
Read the speech. I stand corrected, BT. Point made. So than, it's his senility we need to worry about. Even more dangerous.
BSB
-
Or he used the term developing to mean building up and not as his detractors assumed to mean initiating.
Just a matter of perspective and predisposition i guess.
-
<<[The "pesky facts" are that]T we still have nothing more that hearsay as far as "sexual harrasment" . . . >>
true, but it's also a "pesky fact" that most male executives can complete their term of employment without ONE allegation of sexual harrassment that leads to a hefty settlement, let alone two.
Hefty in your OPINION...based on current reality, and FACTS, that's chickenfeed, as Ami & Bt have already attested to
<< . . . that Cain signed nothing as it relates to any settlement>>
a totally meaningless fact since the Association was in all probability....
Meaningless in your OPINION, as well as your OPINION as to what they supposedly were probably doing. You have no clue what they were doing, and is just as explained, if not more logically, in the desire to keep $$$'s and publicity to the association to a minimum, while her position was terminated, and she ran with the $$$
<< . . . that, that its perfectly within reason to settle such cases out of court for such a small price compared to what litigation might cost, etc., etc., etc.>>
LOL. 80K is NOT a "small price" for two sexual harrassment claims that don't go beyond allegations of verbal-level comments that leave the victim feeling merely "uncomfortable"
IN YOUR OPINION, MINUS ANY FACTS TO SUPPORT IT. Current facts support precisely the opposite
<<That this is nothing more than a distration. a MSM circus of a witchunt, spending 24/7 news cycle going after nothing more than a 20+yr hold "harrasment" accusation . . . >>
Oh, I actually agree with you on that, this is purely political in the absence of evidence of any really egregious conducts, but that is not a "pesky fact" at all, that is merely your opinion
agreed, as I never claimed it was a fact. Merely opinion based on a mountain of anecdotal evidence
<< . . . while messers "happily married" Obama & Clinton got nary a touch of anythimg even remotely approacing such tenacious scrutiny. Bill Ayers?? Jaunita Broaddrick? Rev Wright? Hello?? Media??>>
Now why on earth would that surprise you?
It doesn't...they're Democrats. They pretty much get a pass, at far more scandalous acts. D'uh
-
<<...based on current reality, and FACTS, that's [the 80K settlement] chickenfeed . . . >>
Huh? Based on "FACTS" the 80K is chickenfeed? Maybe I missed something here, but what "FACTS" have you got that say 80K is chickenfeed? Inquiring minds demand to know.
<< . . . as Ami & Bt have already attested to>>
They didn't "attest" to anything, but merely offered their opinions as to 80K being chickenshit or not. Ami in particular was talking through his ass, trying to make it appear that the discovery costs alone could dwarf the settlement. That might be true in some cases, but certainly not in a "he said-she said" case with no documentary or physical evidence available and a full investigation by the employer, presumably complete with the statements of the various parties concerned, before them. There was virtually nothing left to "discover" and any lawyer foolish enough to try to build further costs in discovering what had already been discovered could be made to pay the costs personally. Considering that there was no evidence of serious mental trauma, and the worst we know of the effect on the victims was that they were made to feel "uncomfortable," with apparently zero physical contact, 40K each, more or less, is in fact a pretty hefty settlement.
<<Meaningless [that Cain signed nothing]in your OPINION, as well as your OPINION as to what they supposedly were probably doing. You have no clue what they were doing . . . >>
With all due respect, I have considerable clue as to what they were doing, and you, on the other hand, have none. Joel P. Bennett, who advised one of the victims, is a successful Washington DC attorney specializing in employment law (according to his website, 70% employee, 30% employer) and is not likely to have advised his client to take a chickenshit settlement. He wouldn't have taken the case if it was baseless, because it wouldn't have been worth his while, and because it's he-says, she-says, there is no guarantee. A schlepper fresh out of law school has some incentive to take a case like that on spec, but not a guy like Bennett. God knows there are more than enough well-grounded sexual harrassment cases in the DC area to go around. 40K is not only a good solid recovery for a case that doesn't even go to discoveries, but is a solid indication that there was a huge exposure to a much bigger loss if the case had gone forward.
<<and is just as explained, if not more logically, in the desire to keep $$$'s and publicity to the association to a minimum>>
Well you're right about the publicity being kept to the minimum but 100% wrong about the $$$ - - 80K is hardly the minimum, I would expect that about 15K each plus a few months' severance pay (which Cain himself estimated at 3K or 4K max) - - say about 20K per employee, or 40K max would have been the minimum that could have been expected had the case gone to trial. In which case, 15K would have been eminently reasonable for harrassment that was limited to some verbal remarks in the course of hard drinking by all parties, where the maximum harm to the victims was a "feeling of discomfort." The NRA's willingness to settle at twice the minimum, undoubtedly on the advice of experienced counsel, indicates to me that the accusations in both cases were far from "groundless" or "baseless."
<<IN YOUR OPINION [80K is small] MINUS ANY FACTS TO SUPPORT IT. Current facts support precisely the opposite>>
Really, what "current facts" are you referring to? Do you know any "current facts" that say women who are harrassed sexually during heavy drinking in public with their employers, but only by suggestive words, without groping or physical assaults, without any mental trauma other than "discomfort," are usually awarded much more than 35K or 40K each? WHERE ARE those "current facts?" Inquiring minds need to know.
Quote from: Michael Tee on Today at 12:25:55 AM
<< . . . while messers Hello?? Media??>>
<<Now why on earth would that surprise you? [that <<"happily married" Obama & Clinton got nary a touch of anythimg even remotely approacing such tenacious scrutiny>>] despite their associations with "Bill Ayers?? Jaunita Broaddrick? Rev Wright?">>
<<It doesn't...they're Democrats. They pretty much get a pass, at far more scandalous acts. D'uh>>
So then I guess you wouldn't mind answering my original question, which you conveniently "forgot" to include when cutting and pasting my words as you did above, which was, "So how did you come to hear of the names of Bill Ayers, and the others, if not from the MSM?"
-
............in a "he said-she said" case with no documentary or physical evidence available and a full investigation by the employer, presumably complete with the statements of the various parties concerned, before them. There was virtually nothing left to "discover" and any lawyer foolish enough to try to build further costs in discovering what had already been discovered could be made to pay the costs personally. Considering that there was no evidence of serious mental trauma, and the worst we know of the effect on the victims was that they were made to feel "uncomfortable," with apparently zero physical contact, 40K each, more or less, is in fact a pretty hefty settlement.
........
Wow , words only?
What can a guy say that means that much?
-
That might be true in some cases, but certainly not in a "he said-she said" case with no documentary or physical evidence available and a full investigation by the employer, presumably complete with the statements of the various parties concerned, before them.
So Joel P. Bennett would take the investigation report by the company as gospel even though the company would be a defendant in any case going forward? No offense to Mr. Bennett but if that were his advice, that we wouldn't conduct our own investigation, i would be lawyer shopping in a NY Minute.
-
<<Wow , words only?
<<What can a guy say that means that much?>>
He's not "a guy," he's the head of the organization she works for. There's a certain amount of trust that is broken, because an employer-employee or boss-worker relationship implies a certain bond of mutual respect and consideration and when that bond is broken, the words from the superior in the relationship can hurt a lot more than if they came from some schmuck she passes on the street or briefly encounters on the subway.
These cases are based on what a jury will award in most cases - - the employer trying to strike the jury, the employee usually wanting a jury - - but the best test of this is to put yourself on that jury: suppose you yourself are in the jury box with five of your peers (civil jury = 6 in most states) and this babe appears before you with her tale of woe - - we were out celebrating something, some drinking going on and the head of my organization said I had nice tits which I admit did not send me into a state of shock and twelve years of psychiatry but God-damn it I am a self-respecting married woman and I found this pretty fucking offensive. Cain of course denies the whole thing, nothing happened, I just told her she and my wife are the same height, BFD. You listen to both and you figure, this babe is not magnifying her damages by claiming all kinds of outrageous groping and over-the-top traumatization, so she's not going to get rich out of this and Cain is a horn-dog like all men are only maybe more so and she's got a lot to lose from going public with this, being called a lying whore being only the start of it, and she tells one straight story start to finish, whereas Cain, he changes his story every time he's asked another question; so-- bottom line, you believe the "she-said" and you don't believe the "he-said."
So now, you're on the jury, you bought her story but not his, and the issue is damages. YOU ARE THE JUDGE. The judge tells you that you are required by law to award damages that in your opinion are appropriate to the amount of hurt that she has suffered. You think it all over, they were drinking and probably kidding around, he says what he says, she admits to feeling nothing more than "discomfort" - - no traumatization, nothing that requires the services of a shrink or even a counsellor, she's still married to the same hubby - - what do YOU think are appropriate damages, Mr. Juror - - $40K? Give me a fucking break! Would you, as sirs and BT argue, feel that 40K is chickenshit compared to the outrageous harm that she suffered, and give her, what? 100K as appropriate damages? 250K? 500K?
40K IMHO is a very hefty settlement to atone for the harm done, even if 3 or 4K of that is the three months' wages that Cain said her 3 months' wages were worth.
The notion that 80K for these two babes is "chickenshit" is just ludicrous. That was a very hefty settlement that the Restaurant Association made on Cain's behalf and it certainly would NOT have been made if they felt that the accusations were totally baseless. They or more likely their insurers have adequate resources to defend baseless claims, the cost of which is certainly not a factor in defending an 80K claim, which is "chickenshit" in the eyes of nobody but a deluded right-wing ideologue.
-
<<So Joel P. Bennett would take the investigation report by the company as gospel even though the company would be a defendant in any case going forward? No offense to Mr. Bennett but if that were his advice, that we wouldn't conduct our own investigation, i would be lawyer shopping in a NY Minute. >>
Uh, no, Bennett would not take the company's investigation report as gospel. He'd take it as a kind of road map or guide to the facts. He'd gain a pretty good overview of the common ground, how long the vic had been with the company, what her daily duties were, what pre-incident contact she'd had with Herm the Perv and the nature of their relationship, where the event took place where the harrassment occurred, who else had been present etc. etc. etc.
There'd probably be a lot of common ground on which all interviewed witnesses would have agreed. So that when the discoveries took place, you might need only three hours of discoveries and 175 pages of transcript instead of two weeks of discoveries and thousands of pages of transcripts. Simple questions such as "Do you agree now with the facts as you stated them then?" of course giving the witness the opportunity of reviewing his or anyone else's statement from the record of the previous investigation would shave hours off discovery times. If any lawyer had been stupid enough to waste the discovery on the re-discovery of facts previously known and not in contest, he or she would very likely be stuck with the wasted costs personally.
-
Actually Mikey, in your zest to harm the negro, for daring to think for himself, thus being worthy of the racist slur Uncle Tom, your are forgetting one simple fact.
The NRA was a party to any complaint going forward. And it would be easy to show that they fostered an atmosphere where sexual harassment either by deed or by misinterpreted words, because they were in the hospitality industry and as such they often held gatherings where alcohol was consumed in a much more relaxed atmosphere than a normal workplace and where men and women of various degrees of power relationships would be gathered in a party atmosphere.
The NRA was wise to settle for so small an amount and Bennett was wise for making the quick buck.
-
They or more likely their insurers have adequate resources to defend baseless claims, the cost of which is certainly not a factor in defending an 80K claim, which is "chickenshit" in the eyes of nobody but a deluded right-wing ideologue.
========================================
I agree, except I would use the word "chickenfeed".
"Chickenshit" normally refers to a person or an opinion.
They would not have offered such a large sum for nothing.
Cain has handled this about as poorly as possible, first saying there was nothing, then quibbling about the word "settlement" vs "Agreement" (what is the difference?) now remembering more and more of what he obviously had never forgotten.
He is incompetent at handling his own campaign, he would be incompetent at handling the presidency.
I say "would be", because he will never get the nomination, even if he wins it in the Bizarro Land of sirs
-
Per Bennett, Cain was not a signatory to the agreement nor was it likely that he was still at the NRA when the complaint was settled.
-
<<The NRA was a party to any complaint going forward. And it would be easy to show that they fostered an atmosphere where sexual harassment either by deed or by misinterpreted words, because they were in the hospitality industry and as such they often held gatherings where alcohol was consumed in a much more relaxed atmosphere than a normal workplace and where men and women of various degrees of power relationships would be gathered in a party atmosphere. >>
With all due respect, BT, if having parties with alcohol and mixed company was fostering sexual harassment, every fucking organization in the country would be guilty of fostering sexual harassment.
-
With all due respect, BT, if having parties with alcohol and mixed company was fostering sexual harassment, every fucking organization in the country would be guilty of fostering sexual harassment.
Which is probably why a lot of complaints originate from company gatherings in non office settings. Christmas parties, company picnics etc.
inhibitions are lowered, smiles are misinterpreted etc.
-
<<Per Bennett, Cain was not a signatory to the agreement nor was it likely that he was still at the NRA when the complaint was settled. >>
Cain's signature on the document or not on means squat. It was the victims who were suing Cain, not the other way round. Their signature was required on the settlement, since they had to acknowledge the payment, pledge non-disclosure and forswear further action against Cain or the association. Since Cain wasn't suing the victims, and wasn't being paid off for anything, his signature to the agreement wasn't necessary. What the victims wanted from the association, the association itself could sign for - - payment of settlement funds, non-retaliation, the provision of letters of reference and the terms thereof, etc. Cain's signature at that point, since he was then out of the association, would have meant jack-shit.
It's also interesting that Cain was gone by the time the settlement was reached, meaning of course that the alleged motivation for the settlement (protection of the association's good name) was a joke. Had anyone, say a prospective female hire, expressed concern about sexual harassment at the NRA, the stock response could have been, "Yeah, we DID have a sexual harassment problem and its name was Herm the Perv Cain, but it's nothing you have to worry about because we fixed the problem and Herm the Perv is now gone."
As a matter of interest, has anyone inquired into the strange particulars of the old Hermster leaving the Association before any of the sexual harassment claims naming him as the sole harasser were settled, and what connection, if any, there was between the Perv leaving his position as head of the association and the sexual harassment charges laid against him? Inquiring minds need to know.
-
It was the victims who were suing Cain, not the other way round.
No lawsuit(s) were filed. If one had been filed the complaints would be public record.
Did you know Cain briefly ran for President in 2000. Leaving summer of 99 would fit in with that objective.
-
<<No lawsuit(s) were filed. If one had been filed the complaints would be public record. >>
My mistake. I knew of course that no lawsuit had been filed. I wrote "sued" or "suing" when I should have kept the reference to the lower level of a complaint before action is filed in court. Thanks for the correction.
<<Did you know Cain briefly ran for President in 2000. Leaving summer of 99 would fit in with that objective. >>
It would also fit in with the NRA solving its sexual harassment/sexual predator problem by them telling Cain he had to go, and Cain, rather than staying to fight the charges, making up some half-assed attempt at running for President to cover his hasty exit from the top job at NRA.
Does anyone know how much of an effort he actually made at running for President in the 2000 elections, when he began to invest time and money in it, how much of his own money and how much supporters' money was put into this "campaign" and how it compares in seriousness of intent with the campaigns of the other candidates?
This guy, in addition to his Tomming, which is bad enough, is starting to look like utter sleaze. What if he used supporters' money to finance a phony, short-lived "run for President" purely to mask his being turfed at the NRA for his creepy sexual harassment of two female employees? Why the hell doesn't anyone REALLY investigate Uncle Tom here to see what he's really all about?
-
<<No lawsuit(s) were filed. If one had been filed the complaints would be public record. >>
My mistake. I knew of course that no lawsuit had been filed. I wrote "sued" or "suing" when I should have kept the reference to the lower level of a complaint before action is filed in court. Thanks for the correction.
<<Did you know Cain briefly ran for President in 2000. Leaving summer of 99 would fit in with that objective. >>
It would also fit in with the NRA solving its sexual harassment/sexual predator problem by them telling Cain he had to go, and Cain, rather than staying to fight the charges, making up some half-assed attempt at running for President to cover his hasty exit from the top job at NRA.
Does anyone know how much of an effort he actually made at running for President in the 2000 elections, when he began to invest time and money in it, how much of his own money and how much supporters' money was put into this "campaign" and how it compares in seriousness of intent with the campaigns of the other candidates?
This guy, in addition to his Tomming, which is bad enough, is starting to look like utter sleaze. What if he used supporters' money to finance a phony, short-lived "run for President" purely to mask his being turfed at the NRA for his creepy sexual harassment of two female employees? Why the hell doesn't anyone REALLY investigate Uncle Tom here to see what he's really all about?
In 2000, Cain filed to run for President, before dropping out and endorsing Steve Forbes. Looks like it was shortlived. He was national Co-Chair for Steve Forbes .
Probably another way racists will think he stepped off the plantation.
-
<<Probably another way racists will think he stepped off the plantation. >>
When the so-called "plantation" is actually the home of all the civil rights leaders who courageously fought for black people's civil rights, at the very real risk of their own lives, the hollowness and the basic childish dishonesty of the "off the plantation" mantra of the racists who use it becomes even more obvious and transparent.
Yeah, he stepped off the "plantation" of the struggle for black people's rights, and he joined Mr. Charley. A more despicable betrayal is hard to find, although Vidkum Quisling's comes close. And yeah, there IS a name for it, quisling for the Norwegians, and Uncle Tom for U.S. blacks. And no, neither name is "racist." It comes from the legitimate anger of the anti-racists of the world, against not only racists but the cowardly traitors to their own people who collaborate with them. "Plantation" my ass!!
-
Historically blacks voted overwhelmingly GOP after the Civil War until the end of WWII. They switched in 64. So Cain didn't join Mr. Charley because Mr. Charley was the party of Jim Crow and Federalized segregation and we know which party that came from.
Nice try though. And even though the black vote wasn't going to the GOP Nixon institutionalized the federal quota system. So how was it not in Cains or any black mans interest to remain a Republican?
The Dems gave blacks the break up of the family and welfare dependency. Don't take my word for it, take Sen Moynihans word for it.
Your whole race traitor thesis is out and out nonsense.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/blacks-and-the-democratic-party/ (http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/blacks-and-the-democratic-party/)
-
<<Wow , words only?
<<What can a guy say that means that much?>>
He's not "a guy," he's the head of the organization she works for. There's a certain amount of trust that is broken, because an employer-employee or boss-worker relationship implies a certain bond of mutual respect and consideration and when that bond is broken, the words from the superior in the relationship can hurt a lot more than if they came from some schmuck she passes on the street or briefly encounters on the subway.
These cases are based on what a jury will award in most cases - - the employer trying to strike the jury, the employee usually wanting a jury - - but the best test of this is to put yourself on that jury: suppose you yourself are in the jury box with five of your peers (civil jury = 6 in most states) and this babe appears before you with her tale of woe - - we were out celebrating something, some drinking going on and the head of my organization said I had nice tits which I admit did not send me into a state of shock and twelve years of psychiatry but God-damn it I am a self-respecting married woman and I found this pretty fucking offensive. Cain of course denies the whole thing, nothing happened, I just told her she and my wife are the same height, BFD. You listen to both and you figure, this babe is not magnifying her damages by claiming all kinds of outrageous groping and over-the-top traumatization, so she's not going to get rich out of this and Cain is a horn-dog like all men are only maybe more so and she's got a lot to lose from going public with this, being called a lying whore being only the start of it, and she tells one straight story start to finish, whereas Cain, he changes his story every time he's asked another question; so-- bottom line, you believe the "she-said" and you don't believe the "he-said."
So now, you're on the jury, you bought her story but not his, and the issue is damages. YOU ARE THE JUDGE. The judge tells you that you are required by law to award damages that in your opinion are appropriate to the amount of hurt that she has suffered. You think it all over, they were drinking and probably kidding around, he says what he says, she admits to feeling nothing more than "discomfort" - - no traumatization, nothing that requires the services of a shrink or even a counsellor, she's still married to the same hubby - - what do YOU think are appropriate damages, Mr. Juror - - $40K? Give me a fucking break! Would you, as sirs and BT argue, feel that 40K is chickenshit compared to the outrageous harm that she suffered, and give her, what? 100K as appropriate damages? 250K? 500K?
40K IMHO is a very hefty settlement to atone for the harm done, even if 3 or 4K of that is the three months' wages that Cain said her 3 months' wages were worth.
The notion that 80K for these two babes is "chickenshit" is just ludicrous. That was a very hefty settlement that the Restaurant Association made on Cain's behalf and it certainly would NOT have been made if they felt that the accusations were totally baseless. They or more likely their insurers have adequate resources to defend baseless claims, the cost of which is certainly not a factor in defending an 80K claim, which is "chickenshit" in the eyes of nobody but a deluded right-wing ideologue.
Well I can certainly see why you were so eager to impeach Clinton.
But this case never went to a jury, never was seen by a judge so your reasoninb has a weakness there.
Herman Cain never decided to give any money at all to these women, and I don't share your faith in CEOs and Board members to always make perfectly moral, correct and wise decisions.
Because this settlement did not involve Herman Cain , it says nothing about Herman Cain.
-
<<Historically blacks voted overwhelmingly GOP after the Civil War until the end of WWII. They switched in 64. So Cain didn't join Mr. Charley because Mr. Charley was the party of Jim Crow and Federalized segregation and we know which party that came from.
<<Nice try though. And even though the black vote wasn't going to the GOP Nixon institutionalized the federal quota system. So how was it not in Cains or any black mans interest to remain a Republican?>>
Hey, nice try yourself, BT, and thanks for the un-needed and overly selective history lesson, which kind of skipped over Goldwater and the whole Southern Strategy thing, and Reagan and his "welfare queens" and Lee Atwater/Willie Horton, all in favour of Nixon and his affirmative action thing, no doubt a disastrous deviation from racist plans.
My gosh, just LOOK at the time on my computer. I just realized that we're already in 2011 and where did the Nixon years go? My suspicion - - and it's only a suspicion, mind you - - is that Herman Cain's computer also says that it's 2011. And I'm betting that all the "brainwashed" (Cain's term for them, certainly not mine) black majority are just smart enough to realize that they are not back in the golden days of their "friend," Richard Nixon and that the GOP is actually NOT their "benefactor" today.
<<The Dems gave blacks the break up of the family and welfare dependency. Don't take my word for it, take Sen Moynihans word for it.>>
Sorry, I never read Moynihan's book. So if you're going to base an argument on it, you'll have to give me a few clues on what it says. From what I can see, whether or not it's in Moynihan's book, the Democrats gave the blacks the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, and enforced the writ of the U.S. Supreme Court throughout the school systems of the American South, which broke the back of segregation and Jim Crow. And which allowed the racist GOP to make unprecedented inroads into the South due to Goldwater's racist Southern Strategy.
<<Your whole race traitor thesis is out and out nonsense. >>
Well, it WOULD be if your ludicrous theory that the GOP favours black interests had any merit. As it happens, it is YOUR theory that the blacks would benefit from a GOP administration that is utter nonsense.
-
My gosh, just LOOK at the time on my computer. I just realized that we're already in 2011 and where did the Nixon years go? My suspicion - - and it's only a suspicion, mind you - - is that Herman Cain's computer also says that it's 2011.
I'm betting it's only Obama's computer that still says 2008.
-
<<My gosh, ....... the Democrats gave the blacks the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act,.............
Oh?
You think this ,why?
-
<<Well I can certainly see why you were so eager to impeach Clinton.>>
Actually, I was not at all eager to impeach Clinton. I can certainly see the difference between preying on an employee with unwanted advances and succumbing to temptation, which can happen to any of us lucky enough to be tempted, and Clinton was certainly a lot luckier than most. Actually it is my belief that as President of the United States of America, a man is naturally entitled to the freely volunteered favours of any of the ladies of the land. It's just one of the many perks of the office. Just ask anyone who knew the late JFK. Sadly, these perks are not available to the CEO of the NRA.
<<But this case never went to a jury, never was seen by a judge so your reasoninb has a weakness there.>>
ROTFLMFAO. Ahh, plane, unfortunately it is YOUR reasoning that has a weakness there. Specifically that if something doesn't pass scrutiny by a jury or a judge, it did not happen. You yourself seem to have strong beliefs in MANY things that never passed before a judge or jury, so many in fact that I don't even know where to begin, so I'll just leave off showing specific examples unless you want to challenge the assertion.
<<Herman Cain never decided to give any money at all to these women, and I don't share your faith in CEOs and Board members to always make perfectly moral, correct and wise decisions.
<<Because this settlement did not involve Herman Cain , it says nothing about Herman Cain.>>
OK, plane and thanks for the additional laughs. Now let me introduce you to the real world. TWO women were disturbed enough by Cain's antics that they laid formal complaints against his employer alleging sexual harassment. At least one of them was represented by experienced, capable, senior employment counsel (Joel P. Bennett,) who would be very unlikely to take on a "he said-she said" case unless he himself was convinced that he had a strong and credible witness who could back up the allegations. A THIRD woman was waiting in the wings with her own accusations against Cain but we don't know what happened to her. The other woman who pursued a claim must have had counsel roughly equivalent to Joel P. Bennett because she got roughly the same settlement as Bennett's client did, although it's also possible she could have had less capable counsel who merely rode on Bennett's coat-tails.
The company must have done a thorough investigation at the time. Cain himself says they did, and he should know. Common sense alone tells us that they would have. At the very minimum, the investigation would have included getting signed statements from Cain, the two victims, the third vic (if known to have relevant information at the time and willing to talk,) and any eye-witnesses known to Cain or his victims at the time. (And we now know that there was at least one eye-witness who claims to be able to back up at least one of the two vics.) The investigation might well include polygraph tests and background investigations as well, and many other things.
So the completed investigation comes before either the company or its insurers. In the case of the company, it's inconceivable that this wouldn't be passed on to experienced counsel. The company may or may not have its own claims department and adjusters, who would then work with counsel. Or it went straight to insurance, in which case, in addition to in-house adjusters and in-house counsel, it probably would go also to outside counsel. Further and better investigations could and probably were ordered.
In any event, the investigation results were all gathered and reviewed by very experienced professionals who considered this from the point of view of the victims' credibility AND the amount of damages and costs that the association could expect to incur under various possible scenarios (fighting one or both claims in court or in arbitration, stonewalling, denial of any liability, escalating offers, etc.) and solutions were proposed.
If it had become apparent that Cain was a serial sexual predator, it would almost inevitably follow that Cain would have to go, quickly, and in fact that's exactly what happened. Cain left even before the settlement papers were signed.
Now, keeping in mind the rapid exit of Cain from the association, arguments about the settlement being in large part to protect the company's good name are, frankly, hogwash. The company's good name was protected the moment that Cain hauled his ass out the front door for the last time, because as I indicated earlier, the association could point to its swift action in removing the alleged perp and say that with Cain, its sexual harassment problem had vanished.
In the judgement of experienced professionals, these two claims were found to be worth 80K to settle. Even in Cain's own estimation, a few thousand bucks (say 3K x2 = 6K) would have been the severance pay component of the settlement. Leaving 74K damages for sexual harassment, harassment which admittedly never went beyond mere words, caused no lasting trauma, no absences from work, no impairment of relationships, nothing beyond "feelings of discomfort."
Let us be realistic here. If every "nothingburger" complaint of sexual harassment would put about 35K into a woman's pocket, companies and associations would be deluged with these kinds of complaints. Employers simply can't afford to throw that kind of money at every frivolous complaint that pops up, especially in a shaky economy where nobody's job is guaranteed to last anyway. This employer had minimal concerns about reputation, since the perv had already left, and absolutely zero incentive to throw away 80K on trumped-up complaints. With a thorough investigation in front of them, they decided it was better to pay out 80K to the two vics than to take their chances in a court or arbitration, where the exposure could obviously have been a lot higher than what they settled for.
Finally, it is very hard to believe that the insurer or the association did not get Herm the Perv's approval of the settlement, whether or not he signed on the settlement itself. The non-disclosure clause and the "non-disparagement" clause - - see http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57318924-503544/herman-cain-accuser-stands-by-complaint-wont-go-public/?tag=re1.channel (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57318924-503544/herman-cain-accuser-stands-by-complaint-wont-go-public/?tag=re1.channel) - - indicate that the Association was in fact protecting Cain's interests, when, through its counsel, it signed the settlement agreement. It is inconceivable that the Association would attempt to protect Cain's interests and yet not obtain Cain's written consent to the settlement - - otherwise, any subsequent legal action by the vic against Cain could result in action by Cain against the Association for failure to adequately protect his interests in the settlement agreement. The inclusion of a "non-disparagement" clause would prevent the Association from defending against Cain's action by claiming that they had never undertaken to protect his interests.
At the end of the day, an investigation or investigations, reviewed by experienced professionals with no axe to grind in the matter, including the two counsel who signed for the Association, concluded that there was enough merit to the accusations that it made sense to settle them out of court for a payment of at least 35K, which is certainly not chickenfeed in anyone's estimation. AND, within two or three months of the claim being presented, Herm the Perv was gone from the CEO's office.
Draw your own conclusions.
-
An astute observation, MT.
Cain has decided to shut up about it. That suggests that the actual truth is WORSE than what we know so far.
It seems to me that after settlement No.2, he was ejected from the NRA forthwith.
Will Cain take a "Godfather" Second Amendment solution to this problem? I sure hope not.
-
First of all Clinton was not accused of giving women what they asked for, he was accused of lewdly exposing himself and lewd harrassment. His trial that "aquitted " him is where he admittedly committed purjury, which in my estimation puts a rotten spot on the aquittal.
Herman Cain is not even accused of half so much , and not by half so many.
Most of what you wrote depends on assumptions on the competance, professionalism , honesty and common sense of the US business class , which I just don't share with you.
I think highly placed professional businessmen are just as liable to be craven and foolish as anyone elese, what they chose to do might be quite diffrent than a good decdision and might also be diffrent than what Herman Cain would do.
-
We don't even know allegedly what Cain did or allegedly to who. This story is not only over, but it shouldn't even have been reported in the first place.
-
It is worse than we have been told, and Cain is counting on something keeping those women from speaking. My guess is a second fistful each of the Koch brother's money.
Cain was canned because of this, quite obviously. Do we want to see another impeachment trial in 2014? Of course it should have been mentioned.
None of you will shut them up. Cain will not shut them up.
Sumbitch is pretty much dead meat, and it's his own damn fault.
-
It is worse than we have been told,
Oh, really? Tell us, what did Cain say that was so bad?
-
You have no imagination, do you.
Worship Cain if you like. He is still dead meat. This thing will not go away, because this sort of thing never goes away. Ask Gary Hart.
-
You are dead meat. You made a wild accucation that you have no proof of.
-
I am running for nothing. I am not any sort of meat. I do not have to prove anything to you. You would not believe me, anyway. My opinion will not destroy Cain. Yours will not save him. We are spectators, not participants. We are nowhere near the meat counter.
If this is a grocery store, I am an indestructible Twinkie, and I will be around for decades.
-
What facts do you use to back up your opinions?
-
My observation is that whenever a politician clams up about something and does not get his side of the story out, it has ALWAYS been because his side of the story is pretty awful, worse than most have imagined. Gary Hart, Spiro Agnew, Richard Nixon, John Edwards. It is a nonpartisan phenomenon. Imagine, a Black guy and a White woman who must have the Southern vote. How would that work out?
Sure, it is speculation. So is my opinion of who will get the nomination.
I can say what I wish. You can believe whatever pulls your chain.
I think Debkafiles sucks. Some think that is is the Word of Gawd Awmighty.
-
Well, it WOULD be if your ludicrous theory that the GOP favours black interests had any merit. As it happens, it is YOUR theory that the blacks would benefit from a GOP administration that is utter nonsense.
The GOP treats everyone equally. I think that was clarified during one of the debates when the hispanic journalist asked what the GOP would do to pander to that demographic and the answer from all the panelists was nothing.
Now what have the dems done for blacks recently to earn their vote. Can't be much if the Black Caucus accuses Obama of taking their votes for granted.
-
As a meeting, on the heels of 9/11, was about to begin at Camp David, Tony Blair noticed that Bush was flanked by two African Americans, Colin Powell, and Condi Rice. Blair thought, could this happen in the UK? No, he answered himself, we aren't this far along.
Neither is any other western European nation. And only the United States, among the western powers, has elected an African-you-pick-it as their leader.
Find another horse to ride, Blowhard.
BSB (A Republican who voted for an African American to lead this country)
-
As a meeting, on the heels of 9/11, was about to begin at Camp David, Tony Blair noticed that Bush was flanked by two African Americans, Colin Powell, and Condi Rice. Blair thought, could this happen in the UK? No, he answered himself, we aren't this far along.
Neither is any other western European nation. And only the United States, among the western powers, has elected an African-you-pick-it as their leader.
Find another horse to ride, Blowhard.
BSB (A Republican who voted for an African American to lead this country)
Canada too.
-
This conversation, because beyond its entertainment, and personal ego trip, value, is meaningless. A white minority in this country is only just around the corner. It's the not the Smiths and the Jones who live down the street anymore, it's the Alaminos family, and the Sanchez family.
BSB
-
Blair is a whore who joined in the unprovoked war on Iraq and not content with following the lies that Bush made up to justify the criminal action, actually made up his own lies as well. (Google Downing Street Memo.) His fawning comments to War Criminal Bush about America's "racial progress" are about as honest and sincere as anything else he says.
For those who are stupid enough to be taken in by Bush's little Afro-American dog & pony show, let me help you out a little here: the use of Uncle Toms and Aunt Jemimas aren't intended to appeal to the white racist segment of the GOP, who are already hooked on policies, not appearances, and understand all too well what the Willie Hortons and "welfare queens" really signify. The Toms and Jemimas are for the non-racist uncommitted whites and some very few, very dumb blacks, who are likely to be lulled by the imagery into joining or voting GOP when an overtly racist party might have turned them right off.
That said, I have to admit that there has been considerable racial progress in America during my own lifetime, from the days of lynch law and Jim Crow in the South to the days of Condi and General Powell. Could any Canadian government show a similar public acceptance of blacks at the highest levels of government? IMHO, probably not and probably not for a long time. Credit where credit is due, and all that. I am crediting the Democratic Party under the leadership of LBJ for the lion's share of that progress. I don't think LBJ was very enthusiastic about doing it, but he recognized the need and he did what had to be done.
-
That said, I have to admit that there has been considerable racial progress in America during my own lifetime, from the days of lynch law and Jim Crow in the South to the days of Condi and General Powell.
Except for those of the left who think they know the best course of thought for American Blacks and if these blacks deviate they are scorned with racial slurs.
-
BSB (A Republican who voted for an African American to lead this country)
A dumb reason to vote for anybody. Your right to vote should be revoked for such stupidity. Oh well, that's why every black person voted for him too.
-
That is an excellent article on Gingrich. He has always seemed like a shameless opportunist to me, and this tends to back it up.
I didn't vote for Obama because he is Black, I voted for him because he was superior to McCain, and he still is. He is also superior to Gingrich.
I would have also voted for Hillary had she been the Democratic candidate. I had great respect for her in 2008 and greater respect now. She as been an excellent Secretary of State.
-
She as been an excellent Secretary of State.
In what way as she been an excellent Sec of State?
Watching SEALs at the White House (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz1SaDMqWis#ws)
-
In every way, except in nor reading the riot act to Netanyahu.
What sort of clown would McCain have appointed?
-
In every way, except in nor reading the riot act to Netanyahu.
What sort of clown would McCain have appointed?
If he were smart it would have been John Bolton.
-
plane:
<<First of all Clinton was not accused of giving women what they asked for, he was accused of lewdly exposing himself and lewd harrassment. His trial that "aquitted " him is where he admittedly committed purjury, which in my estimation puts a rotten spot on the aquittal.>>
The topic is Herman Cain and his fitness to be the GOP's Presidential candidate in 2012. Can you explain how Clinton's past actions (two of which the House didn't even pass on to the Senate and two of which the Senate found him guilty of nothing) relate in any way to Cain's fitness to hold office?
All four allegations against Clinton were submitted to the proper fora and dismissed. NONE of Cain's actions were submitted to any forum and the only investigation of them remains buried. Common sense applied to what facts are available, tells us that he was in fact guilty as charged - - he was gone from office within two or maximum three months of the first claim being filed, there were two separate complainants and a third who did not file formally, his story about the events has changed several times since the matter came up and, contrary to his earlier claims, the total settlement value was about 80K, a fairly hefty settlement where no physical contact occurred and no substantial harm was alleged. On the settlement that Bennett's client obtained, TWO lawyers for the Association signed, in addition to Bennett and his client. The inclusion of a non-disparagement clause indicates that the Association did in fact undertake to look after the old Hermster's interests, which makes it all but impossible for Herm the Perv NOT to have signed some kind of authorization approving the settlement, lodged either with the Association or its insurers, depending on who assumed responsibility for dealing with the claim in the first place.
Contrary to what you have written, Clinton has NEVER admitted to perjury, nor has any legal representative authorized to represent him at any time.
<<Herman Cain is not even accused of half so much , and not by half so many.>>
Clinton's impeachment arose out of litigation dealing with the Paula Jones accusations, in which Clinton made statements regarding his affair with Monica. I count two accusers. Cain was formally charged by two female employees and a third had also alleged sexual harassment without formally filing a complaint. That makes three. Cain's three accusers cover a relatively short period of time within which he served as the NRA's CEO. The accusations against Clinton span a much wider time frame, from his Governorship of Arkansas to the end of his second Presidential term of office.
<<Most of what you wrote depends on assumptions on the competance, professionalism , honesty and common sense of the US business class , which I just don't share with you.>>
How ironic. In all your other posts, you praise to the skies the expertise of private enterprise and exalt its vast superiority in doing anything that government can do. According to your cockamamie theorizing, the investigation of a private-enterprise entity like the NRA ought to be vastly superior to any effort made by the FBI, CIA, DC District Police, Homeland Security or any other arm of the government. But here you are, wracked with doubt over the ability of the ability of private enterprise to conduct a simple he-said-she-said investigation and come to any sensible conclusions about it.
plane, let me reassure you. The investigation of these claims is not rocket science. They are more common than you would like to think. There is no physical evidence to be examined and analyzed, no stains on blue dresses. There are no documents to be authenticated and then interpreted and explained. It is a simple he-says-she-says kind of case - - videotaped interviews, signed statements to be obtained, maybe some photos of the locations, polygraphs perhaps and a little background investigation of the principal parties. Something that any half-assed PI agency does every fucking day. In all probability the old Hermster himself authorized the settlement for reasons previously given, two lawyers acting for the employer signed it, and to this day to my knowledge the employer has never repudiated the settlement or attacked its lawyers for incompetence, negligence, corruption or any other wrongful representation. Herm the Perv's ass was out the door within two to three months (max) of the first claim being filed.
In his later explanations of these events, the Perv first denied that any settlement had been reached, THEN acknowledged that he had known about an AGREEEEEEMENT, but not about any SETTLEMENT (and attempted to edify us on the tiny but apparently significant differences in meaning) then estimated the total amount at a few thousand bucks representing a few months' wages as severance pay and then conceded that the actual settlement had been about 80K for TWO claims.
Now, plane, there are only two ways that all this could have happened:
1. Herm the Perv, though pure and innocent as the driven snow, had had the incredible bad luck to be accused, not just by one, but by TWO evil lying whores, by some unfortunate coincidence found on his company's payroll, backed up by a third evil lying whore, who had also found her way onto the payroll, of sexual harassment which was followed by the additional bad luck of an incredibly botched investigation perhaps undertaken by the boss's teenage nephew on summer vacation and overseen by at least TWO corporate counsel who were also total incompetents, morons or paid off by plaintiff's attorney Bennett, all of which resulted in an 80K settlement which the executives of the Association were just too evil or incompetent or stupid to see was a travesty, and he also lost his job as a result of this forest of evil, lies and incompetence that surrounded him. OR
2. The system functioned pretty much as intended, the women who courageously came forward and complained were honestly motivated by insult and resentment at Herm the Perv's persistent unwanted advances, an investigation was made by reasonably competent investigators, reviewed by two reasonably competent corporate counsel who made recommendations to the Association's board, which reviewed and with or without changes, approved the settlement in its final form, bit the bullet and paid the 80K and told The Perv to get his ass in gear and remove himself and his overheated pecker from their premises ASAP.
Now plane, nobody but God knows what really happened, but we mortals have to draw our conclusions as best we can from the known facts. I tend to believe that whatever minor errors could have been committed along the way, and certainly in a human process one will find human error, that Scenario 2 is just a lot more probable than Scenario 1. If I were to be shown any particular evidence pointing to major incompetence on the part of the Association's investigators, or its counsel, or its Board, then I might lean more towards Scenario 1. If I had reason to believe that the complainants were women of bad character, money-driven lying whores, then I might be moved more towards Scenario 1. If Cain had told one straight, consistent, accurate story from the beginning, I might be less attracted to Scenario 2. But given all the known facts, Scenario 2 seems to be the only logical conclusion that would occur to sane, logical folk who are not ideologically driven right-wing fanatics.
Is Scenario 1 impossible? Theoretically not, but to believe in it, one has to accept one improbability piled on another, piled on another, piled on another. Everybody involved, except Herm the Perv, has to be lying, incompetent, stupid or corrupt. Everybody. The perfect storm. But for Scenario 2 to occur, we only need ONE person to stand off the beaten path, and that's the old Hermster. I'm not going to use the Occam's Razor argument here, though it might apply - - but all I am saying is that plane's theory of what happened just seems to require a "perfect storm" of evil, incompetence, ignorance and/or corruption that just makes it a million-to-one shot.
<< I think highly placed professional businessmen are just as liable to be craven and foolish as anyone elese, what they chose to do might be quite diffrent than a good decdision and might also be diffrent than what Herman Cain would do.>>
Don't you realize HOW MANY people would have to be "craven and foolish" as well as lying and dishonest in order for all this to add up to a sequence of complaints (by three victims,) investigation, review, deliberation and payment? It's NOT a one-man snap decision, you know.
Besides, don't you also think that "highly placed professional businessmen" (Cain for example) are just as liable to be horny and obnoxious as anyone else?
What's interesting to me is that, as a committed conservative ideologue, you can cling to the illusion of The Perv's innocence in the face of all known fact, logic and common sense. It's like, "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind's already made up." Fact and logic really DO mean nothing at all to you people. You'll go down with the ship.
Fortunately the American people seem to have a lot more common sense than you guys do, and the sexual harassment disclosures are already starting to push down the Perv's numbers considerably. In here, I really do get the sense that the inmates have taken over the asylum, while back in the real world, it doesn't seem all that bad.
-
Yeah, Colin Powell, and Condi Rice, were part of a dog and pony show. Meaning they were there only because they were black and had no real qualifications. You couldn't make a more racist comment if you tried, Blowhard.
The black curtain of revenge shut all the light out of your life decades ago, Canadian.
BSB
-
Michael
I gotta hand it to you. You give the most in-depth answers of anyone I know.
-
Michael
I gotta hand it to you. You give the most in-depth answers of anyone I know.
Tis true , he is generous.
I have already gotten a dollors worth of answer from a nickles worth of question.
-
<<I have already gotten a dollors worth of answer from a nickles worth of question.>>
Jeeziz, sounds like I oughtta start charging you guys.
-
<<I have already gotten a dollors worth of answer from a nickles worth of question.>>
Jeeziz, sounds like I oughtta start charging you guys.
BT should cut you in on his ad revenues.
-
<<Yeah, Colin Powell, and Condi Rice, were part of a dog and pony show.>>
Right.
<< Meaning they were there only because they were black and had no real qualifications. >>
Wrong.
<<The black curtain of revenge . . . >>
Well said. Right. And wrong. It clouds my judgment but not on everything. Blair is a fawning whore and a mass murderer like Bush. In any decent world, Nuremburg laws would apply and they'd long ago have both been sent to the gallows. But we don't live in a decent world, we live in this fucking world. Maybe Blair was right about Powell and Rice as indicators. The comment, even if correct, is meant to distract from war guilt with a pretty picture of racial progress, NONE of it due to Bush or Blair. The one (racial progress) had nothing to do with the other (the crime of launching a war of unprovoked aggression based on deliberate lies.) I spoke too soon and out of anger. BFD. The anger was more than justified. The final judgment (fuck the two a them) was correct despite Blair's gratuitous and smarmy observation.
-
Stuck along the side of the road, Nigger WeWe, and Blowhard, try to unstick their agenda filled wooden carts as the days events speed past them.
BSB
-
plane:
<<First of all Clinton was not accused of giving women what they asked for, he was accused of lewdly exposing himself and lewd harrassment. His trial that "aquitted " him is where he admittedly committed purjury, which in my estimation puts a rotten spot on the aquittal.>>
The topic is Herman Cain and his fitness to be the GOP's Presidential candidate in 2012. Can you explain how Clinton's past actions (two of which the House didn't even pass on to the Senate and two of which the Senate found him guilty of nothing) relate in any way to Cain's fitness to hold office?
All four allegations against Clinton were submitted to the proper fora and dismissed. v
With the use of perjury that Clinton later admitted to and accepted a punishment for. If you are willing to count the untried accusations of the paid off annonoumous women who accuse Herman Cain then you cannot also ignore the accusations of Juanita Broudrick and seven other women who never managed to get their cases into court. Clinton was not accused by only a couple of people, Clinton had a longstanding pattern of harrassment that every trooper of Arkansas knew a lot about. If accusations of the sort that Clinton escaped impeachment from(by a single vote) do not make a person unfit for service as president , then how do smaller and less proven accusations have greater standing?
Contrary to what you have written, Clinton has NEVER admitted to perjury, nor has any legal representative authorized to represent him at any time.
You just do not know any of the facts of the case at all do you? Did you know that Clinton admitted this in his Autobiography?Or that he lost his lisense to practice law because he was a purjurer ? Or that he didn't fight the accusation of purjury when it would have been in defense of his law lisense?
<<Herman Cain is not even accused of half so much , and not by half so many.>>
Clinton's impeachment arose out of litigation dealing with the Paula Jones accusations, in which Clinton made statements regarding his affair with Monica. I count two accusers. Cain was formally charged by two female employees and a third had also alleged sexual harassment without formally filing a complaint. That makes three. Cain's three accusers cover a relatively short period of time within which he served as the NRA's CEO. The accusations against Clinton span a much wider time frame, from his Governorship of Arkansas to the end of his second Presidential term of office.
So we are speaking of one incident with Herman Cain- the circumstances , the events and the provenance remaining as unknown as the identitys of his accusers. While with Clinton we are speaking of a nearly constant habbit attested to by hundreds of witnesses and more than a dozen victims? Which seems more caricteristic of a conspired falsehood? <<Most of what you wrote depends on assumptions on the competance, professionalism , honesty and common sense of the US business class , which I just don't share with you.>>
How ironic. In all your other posts, you praise to the skies the expertise of private enterprise and exalt its vast superiority in doing anything that government can do. According to your cockamamie theorizing, the investigation of a private-enterprise entity like the NRA ought to be vastly superior to any effort made by the FBI, CIA, DC District Police, Homeland Security or any other arm of the government. But here you are, wracked with doubt over the ability of the ability of private enterprise to conduct a simple he-said-she-said investigation and come to any sensible conclusions about it.
plane, let me reassure you. The investigation of these claims is not rocket science. They are more common than you would like to think. There is no physical evidence to be examined and analyzed, no stains on blue dresses. There are no documents to be authenticated and then interpreted and explained. It is a simple he-says-she-says kind of case - - videotaped interviews, signed statements to be obtained, maybe some photos of the locations, polygraphs perhaps and a little background investigation of the principal parties. Something that any half-assed PI agency does every fucking day. In all probability the old Hermster himself authorized the settlement for reasons previously given, two lawyers acting for the employer signed it, and to this day to my knowledge the employer has never repudiated the settlement or attacked its lawyers for incompetence, negligence, corruption or any other wrongful representation. Herm the Perv's ass was out the door within two to three months (max) of the first claim being filed.
In his later explanations of these events, the Perv first denied that any settlement had been reached, THEN acknowledged that he had known about an AGREEEEEEMENT, but not about any SETTLEMENT (and attempted to edify us on the tiny but apparently significant differences in meaning) then estimated the total amount at a few thousand bucks representing a few months' wages as severance pay and then conceded that the actual settlement had been about 80K for TWO claims.
Now, plane, there are only two ways that all this could have happened:
1. Herm the Perv, though pure and innocent as the driven snow, had had the incredible bad luck to be accused, not just by one, but by TWO evil lying whores, by some unfortunate coincidence found on his company's payroll, backed up by a third evil lying whore, who had also found her way onto the payroll, of sexual harassment which was followed by the additional bad luck of an incredibly botched investigation perhaps undertaken by the boss's teenage nephew on summer vacation and overseen by at least TWO corporate counsel who were also total incompetents, morons or paid off by plaintiff's attorney Bennett, all of which resulted in an 80K settlement which the executives of the Association were just too evil or incompetent or stupid to see was a travesty, and he also lost his job as a result of this forest of evil, lies and incompetence that surrounded him. OR
2. The system functioned pretty much as intended, the women who courageously came forward and complained were honestly motivated by insult and resentment at Herm the Perv's persistent unwanted advances, an investigation was made by reasonably competent investigators, reviewed by two reasonably competent corporate counsel who made recommendations to the Association's board, which reviewed and with or without changes, approved the settlement in its final form, bit the bullet and paid the 80K and told The Perv to get his ass in gear and remove himself and his overheated pecker from their premises ASAP.
Now plane, nobody but God knows what really happened, but we mortals have to draw our conclusions as best we can from the known facts. I tend to believe that whatever minor errors could have been committed along the way, and certainly in a human process one will find human error, that Scenario 2 is just a lot more probable than Scenario 1. If I were to be shown any particular evidence pointing to major incompetence on the part of the Association's investigators, or its counsel, or its Board, then I might lean more towards Scenario 1. If I had reason to believe that the complainants were women of bad character, money-driven lying whores, then I might be moved more towards Scenario 1. If Cain had told one straight, consistent, accurate story from the beginning, I might be less attracted to Scenario 2. But given all the known facts, Scenario 2 seems to be the only logical conclusion that would occur to sane, logical folk who are not ideologically driven right-wing fanatics.
Is Scenario 1 impossible? Theoretically not, but to believe in it, one has to accept one improbability piled on another, piled on another, piled on another. Everybody involved, except Herm the Perv, has to be lying, incompetent, stupid or corrupt. Everybody. The perfect storm. But for Scenario 2 to occur, we only need ONE person to stand off the beaten path, and that's the old Hermster. I'm not going to use the Occam's Razor argument here, though it might apply - - but all I am saying is that plane's theory of what happened just seems to require a "perfect storm" of evil, incompetence, ignorance and/or corruption that just makes it a million-to-one shot.
<< I think highly placed professional businessmen are just as liable to be craven and foolish as anyone elese, what they chose to do might be quite diffrent than a good decdision and might also be diffrent than what Herman Cain would do.>>
Don't you realize HOW MANY people would have to be "craven and foolish" as well as lying and dishonest in order for all this to add up to a sequence of complaints (by three victims,) investigation, review, deliberation and payment? It's NOT a one-man snap decision, you know.
Besides, don't you also think that "highly placed professional businessmen" (Cain for example) are just as liable to be horny and obnoxious as anyone else?
What's interesting to me is that, as a committed conservative ideologue, you can cling to the illusion of The Perv's innocence in the face of all known fact, logic and common sense. It's like, "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind's already made up." Fact and logic really DO mean nothing at all to you people. You'll go down with the ship.
Fortunately the American people seem to have a lot more common sense than you guys do, and the sexual harassment disclosures are already starting to push down the Perv's numbers considerably. In here, I really do get the sense that the inmates have taken over the asylum, while back in the real world, it doesn't seem all that bad.
It not only isn't rocket science ,it is not science at all, we have been presented with no evidence whatsoever at this point, and what evidence have we seen that the restraunturs were blessed with even a minor amount of common sense?
This seems strange to you that I do not have confidence in businessmen to have the godlike insight that you ascribe to Stalin, I don't think that anyone at all has this godlike insight short of God himself, neither Henry Ford nor Joseph Stalin deserve that kind of respect.
The strength of capitolism is not that all businesses are staffed with geniuses at their upper levels , this is a leven of the anchient Royalist which Americans would do well to finish loosing, it was not really true of the noble familys , it was not really true of the Bolshivicks that replaced them, it isn't true of the country club set here either. The American way is a respect of the common wisdom, we depart from this often and regret it soon every time.
The strength of Capitolism is Darwinistic, businesses should be allowed to fail as a very ordinary thing, even the rather large ones. If a business is truely too big for the government to allow it to fail , then why didn't the government invoke antitrust law to split it when it began to get that big?
It has to be accepted that leadership is rife with foolishness at every level of every orginasation composed of human beings, where this causes too much of a load the organisation falls, but in a properly functioning capitolism there are young trees surrounding every old one and the fall of one can't ruin the forest.
I do not accept your assumptions that the organisition that made the accomadation and payment to Herman Cains accusers must have made a wise decision just because they were high ranking in business.
I would not make this assumption anywhere.
-
<<Stuck along the side of the road, Nigger WeWe, and Blowhard, try to unstick their agenda filled wooden carts as the days events speed past them.>>
There will always be those who don't give a shit and there will always be those who do. I am always going to be just what I am and proud of it. Your analogy of carts stuck on the road is bullshit. The events of the day that speed by me are people like you who turn a blind eye to injustice and I say fuck the whole God-damn bunch a ya. You aren't worth a rat's ass and I bet at some level you know it. Right is right and wrong is wrong but ass-holes like you don't know the difference or even worse know the difference and don't give a shit.
-
Now, plane, there are only two ways that all this could have happened:
1. Herm the Perv, though pure and innocent as the driven snow, had had the incredible bad luck to be accused, not just by one, but by TWO evil lying whores, by some unfortunate coincidence found on his company's payroll, backed up by a third evil lying whore, who had also found her way onto the payroll, of sexual harassment which was followed by the additional bad luck of an incredibly botched investigation perhaps undertaken by the boss's teenage nephew on summer vacation and overseen by at least TWO corporate counsel who were also total incompetents, morons or paid off by plaintiff's attorney Bennett, all of which resulted in an 80K settlement which the executives of the Association were just too evil or incompetent or stupid to see was a travesty, and he also lost his job as a result of this forest of evil, lies and incompetence that surrounded him. OR
What seems unlikly about a false accusation or a conspiracy or a CEO and board being buffaloed and swindled?
Are any of these things rare in history?
-
Stuck along the side of the road, Nigger WeWe, and Blowhard, try to unstick their agenda filled wooden carts as the days events speed past them.
BSB
I will always have a leg up on you no matter what you say.
Strike 3 Suspended for a week
-
<<With the use of perjury that Clinton later admitted to and accepted a punishment for.>>
I'm not aware of Clinton ever admitting to perjury. He settled disbarment proceeding with the Arkansas State Bar and took, I believe, a five-year suspension. What if he'd confessed to murder? How the hell does any of this relate to Cain's guilt or innocence?
<<If you are willing to count the untried accusations of the paid off annonoumous women who accuse Herman Cain then you cannot also ignore the accusations of Juanita Broudrick and seven other women who never managed to get their cases into court.>>
Again, WTF do any of Clinton's alleged misdeeds have to do with Cain's case? This is just a blatant red herring, a pure distraction, and there is absolutely no point in being dragged off in that direction.
<<Clinton was not accused by . . . .>>
OK, sorry plane, that's ALL the time I'm prepared to spend on Clinton. Let's agree he's a real horn-dog AND a babe magnet and just move on. That was a long time ago and its relevance to the Herman Cain problem is non-existent.
<< . . . how do smaller and less proven accusations have greater standing?>>
Cain's alleged to be a fucking pervert and the facts known so far, which I've detailed in other posts, all support that conclusion. That other men were accused of bigger offences means absolutely nothing. You might as well argue that Hitler and Stalin were accused of worse things than Cain. So fucking what? Is this fucking pervert going to get people's votes when they know on reasonable interpretation of the available facts that he's more likely than not to be a serial sexual predator on female employees? I don't think so. REGARDLESS of what Bill or JFK got away with. THIS guy won't get off the hook like they did. IMHO.
<<Did you know that Clinton admitted this in his Autobiography?>>
No I did not and do not. I didn't read his autobiography. I just tried to search for this on the internet and was unsuccessful. I don't know if Clinton admitted to perjury but I am highly skeptical and would have to see the quote. In any event, suppose he had admitted to murder, how does that affect Cain's fitness or the issue of whether or not he's a serial sexual predator?
<<Or that he lost his lisense to practice law because he was a purjurer ? >>
That's not true either. He negotiated a five-year suspension with the State Bar Association as far as I know, and again this has NOTHING to do with the allegations against Cain.
<<Or that he didn't fight the accusation of purjury when it would have been in defense of his law lisense?>>
Again, absolutely NOTHING to do with the accusations against Cain. CAIN is the one running for nomination as the GOP candidate in 2012, not Clinton.
<<So we are speaking of one incident with Herman Cain- the circumstances , the events and the provenance remaining as unknown as the identitys of his accusers.>>
Well, you're actually speaking of three separate accusations of three different female employees, at least one of whom complained of a pattern of multiple events. The accusers' identities are only unknown to the public, not to the employer, the employer's investigators, the employer's counsel, Cain, Cain's counsel and at least one eye-witness.
<<While with Clinton we are speaking of . . . >>
Actually, with Clinton, you are speaking of something that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the case of Herm the Perv. Nothing.
<<It [the investigation of the sexual harassment claims] not only isn't rocket science ,it is not science at all, we have been presented with no evidence whatsoever at this point . . . >>
Gee, yeah, evidence. plane has no evidence of sexual harassment. What evidence we DO have indicates that within two or three months of the filing of the first complaint, Cain's ass was out the door, that three female employees came forward against him, that a thorough investigation (Cain's own words) was held and that not only was Cain's ass out the door after the thorough investigation but that the Association's TWO counsel signed on to a settlement of about 35K for just one of the complainants, and a total of 80K for both, in a case where no physical contact and no lasting or serious trauma was ever alleged. So from the actions that followed the investigation, we can conclude that SOMEBODY had serious doubts about the story of Herm the Perv.
Now let's compare that with the results of another investigation where we also have "no evidence whatsoever at this point," as plane likes to say. An obnoxious American citizen made broadcasts from Yemen trashing the USA and telling people to fight a jihad against it. A totally secret investigation was undertaken, during which - - on NO evidence that the public has ever seen - - this guy was not only talking trash but participating in al Qaeda operations and so a drone was dispatched to blow him and his buddy to smithereens.
So here's a problem I have with plane's "reasoning" - - when the government makes a decision on which we have no evidence and acts on that decision to take the life of an American citizen, plane has no problem at all. When private enterprise - - superior in all respects to mere government - - undertakes an investigation that ends with an 80K settlement made and the departure of a former CEO - - plane is suddenly all up in arms, "Where's the damn evidence? How can we assume they treated the Perv appropriately? The NRA coulda made a HUGE mistake here!! I have ZERO confidence in the NRA's ability to investigate anything!" I have to admit, I just can't figure this guy out.
<< and what evidence have we seen that the restraunturs were blessed with even a minor amount of common sense?>>
Huh? plane, they're business people! Not government (whom you trust to investigate in secret and kill citizens based on what they find) but PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, who do EVERYTHING BETTER than government. plane, private enterprise conducted this investigation, they didn't kill anybody, they only settled an 80K claim. The NRA has been in existence for over 90 years and represents 380,000 restaurants - - from their website - - plane, these guys are capitalist all the way! You are always telling us how much better business can do things than government. Well, here is an organization representing 380,000 capitalists - - you trust them every time you eat out and put their food in your mouth, you trust them with your LIFE when you eat out. But suddenly you don't trust them to do a better job at investigating a bush-league sexual harassment case of she-said-he-said, where there's no physical evidence and no documents involved? plane, admit it, since it's American business doing the investigation, it's GOTTA be better than any investigation done by the State Department (where citizens can get KILLED as a result of the investigation) or by the CIA or FBI or any of those other Big Government hack organizations. You ALWAYS tell us how much better business is at doing things than the U.S. government is. According to your own crazy theories, this investigation by private enterprise should be a thousand times more reliable than any investigation done by the State Department, CIA, FBI or any government entity.
<<This seems strange to you that I do not have confidence in businessmen to have the godlike insight that you ascribe to Stalin, I don't think that anyone at all has this godlike insight short of God himself, neither Henry Ford nor Joseph Stalin deserve that kind of respect.>>
ROTFLMFAO. OK, sorry, plane, but this time I am really going to have to bring you back to earth. That was hilarious. I hope you realize that God, Henry Ford, and Joseph Stalin do not investigate minor-league sexual harassment cases. They just don't have the time for it. It's below their pay grade. "God-like insight" is not a job requirement. Do you have any idea (well, I'm going to be talking about the real world, so you probably don't) do you have any fucking idea who actually conducts these investigations? Private investigators look into these things. They are not exactly Sherlock Holmes. Insurance adjusters sometimes do. These guys might have a B.A. from some obscure college, usually just a two or three year diploma or certificate from a community college does fine. They are not geniuses, they are not god-like, but they do the job and get it done in hundreds of cases every day in every State and Province. All fucking day. All fucking week. There is nothing to it, as I have indicated many times. If they mess up, the chances are that a superior in the company or the client, or ultimately the corporate counsel, will see it and ask for more or better information. By the time the report gets to the settlement stage, I can safely assume - - unless you have information to the contrary that goes beyond mere speculation - - that the thing is much more likely to be right than wrong.
For your theory about Cain to be correct - - you'd have to be able to show that the investigation was more likely than not to have been botched. Either because the NRA has a history of botched investigations or because you have evidence that more than 50% of all such investigations are botched. You have no such evidence. There is no such evidence.
You could also show that either NRA or the average employer overrides perfectly good investigation reports and settles cases that according to the reports ought not to be settled. Again, you have no such evidence.
Your whole case is just speculation built on top of speculation built on more speculation built on more speculation. For your theory to succeed, the three - - THREE - - female employees have to be lying, money-driven whores; the one eye-witness has to be a liar; the investigators have to be corrupt or incompetent; the company lawyers have to be incompetent or corrupt; the company board has to be stupid, corrupt or incompetent; and Joel P. Barnett a hitherto respected attorney has to be a fraud and a shyster. As I said, you have to prove the existence or the possibility of a perfect storm. What are the odds that all the pieces you need for your puzzle are as they have to be? What are the odds that for Cain to be guilty all you need is ONE lying horn-dog and a system of complainants, investigators, lawyers and executives who are not necessarily "god-like" but simply reasonably competent, about as competent more or less as anyone else in the business?
<< I do not accept your assumptions that the organisition that made the accomadation and payment to Herman Cains accusers must have made a wise decision just because they were high ranking in business.>>
Well that's fine, I don't accept YOUR assumptions that Herm the Perv is a perfectly innocent, honourable man who just had the horrible misfortune to find himself working for an Association that had not one, but THREE lying, evil, money-driven whores and liars who would each falsely accuse him, and the further horrible misfortune of working for a company that couldn't conduct a decent investigation of a case as simple as this, and the further horrible misfortune of having not one but TWO incompetent, stupid or corrupt corporate lawyers who either failed to spot the defects in the report or ignored them completely and the further horrible misfortune of having a board of directors too fucking lazy, stupid or corrupt to see either the deficiencies in the report or the inadequacy or corruption of the corporate lawyers who signed the settlement.
Quite frankly, your assumptions, piled one on another, are simply, taken all together, absurd and ridiculous.
-
Blowhard, WOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH! There's nothing left for you to do but wave.
BSB
P.S. WeWe, you don't have anything up on a quadruple amputee let alone me.
-
<<Blowhard, WOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH! There's nothing left for you to do but wave. >>
You're nuts. I'm a better person than you'll ever be and you're just a fucking disgrace. WOOOOOOOSH my ass! You can travel as fast as you want anywhere you want to go because you have no soul and probably never did. You're going nowhere with your eyes closed tight. WOOOOOOSH! You could live to be a thousand years old and you'd never know the fucking difference between right and wrong. Moron.
-
Can always count at the lunatic left to profess how much smarter, greater, and better they are, to those, who aren't
-
<< I do not accept your assumptions that the organisition that made the accomadation and payment to Herman Cains accusers must have made a wise decision just because they were high ranking in business.>>
Well that's fine, I don't accept YOUR assumptions that Herm the Perv is a perfectly innocent, honourable man who just had the horrible misfortune to find himself working for an Association that had not one, but THREE lying, evil, money-driven whores and liars who would each falsely accuse him, and the further horrible misfortune of working for a company that couldn't conduct a decent investigation of a case as simple as this, and the further horrible misfortune of having not one but TWO incompetent, stupid or corrupt corporate lawyers who either failed to spot the defects in the report or ignored them completely and the further horrible misfortune of having a board of directors too fucking lazy, stupid or corrupt to see either the deficiencies in the report or the inadequacy or corruption of the corporate lawyers who signed the settlement.
Quite frankly, your assumptions, piled one on another, are simply, taken all together, absurd and ridiculous.
(http://images.onset.freedom.com/ocregister/gallery/lu5om5-b78873681z.120111104144057000ge7138lia.1.jpg)
-
<<Can always count at the lunatic left to profess how much smarter, greater, and better they are, to those, who aren't>>
Those remarks weren't addressed to you, and if they had been, I would have used different words, but I never spoke of being either smarter or greater. The "moron" reference was not to intelligence but to moral understanding and responsibility.
-
This thread won't let me post anything more than a few words.
-
<<This thread won't let me post anything more than a few words.>>
That's funny, it usually doesn't let me post anything less than a few hundred.
-
<<Can always count at the lunatic left to profess how much smarter, greater, and better they are, to those, who aren't>>
Those remarks weren't addressed to you, and if they had been, I would have used different words, but I never spoke of being either smarter or greater. The "moron" reference was not to intelligence but to moral understanding and responsibility.
Those remarks have indeed been mentioned on a choice few other occasions, to others, myself included, proclaiming how much smarter you are, how much "better" you see yourelf to be, than those who don't share your racist fringe ideology
-
Blowhard, if you're trying to show yourself to be a morally superior person, you're doing a very shitty job.
Look, lets cut to the chase. You're in here because you feel diminished in some way. You feel like you're less, didn't accomplish, whatever. In order to compensate you go around in here telling everyone how low they are and how high you are. That's all you do in here. This women is a whore, that person is morally less, this person is an Uncle Tom, that lady is an Aunt Jemima. I mean, like, dude, it's pathetically obvious. You aren't even an American, further, you don't even live here. Why the hell else would you waste your time, and ours, in here, except but to fill some neurotic need?
BSB
-
Kramer , you can enjoy my absolute opprobrium for this.
Stuck along the side of the road, Nigger WeWe, and Blowhard, try to unstick their agenda filled wooden carts as the days events speed past them.
BSB
I will always have a leg up on you no matter what you say.
-
Cain's alleged to be a fucking pervert and the facts known so far, which I've detailed in other posts, all support that conclusion.
Is this as accurate as your conclusions against the Duke players a few years ago?
-
<<Those remarks have indeed been mentioned on a choice few other occasions, to others, myself included, proclaiming how much smarter you are, how much "better" you see yourelf to be, than those who don't share your racist fringe ideology>>
I will make a well-meant constructive debating suggestion to you, which is that you confine yourself to debating what is in the same thread as your comment, because I personally have enough on my hands keeping up with current threads and I am NOT going to be put on the defensive against McCarthy-like accusations concerning undefined statements made at unspecified times to you "and others" (nameless of course) about my purported attributes and "racist fringe ideology." I know you're a good fascist and the late and unlamented Joe McCarthy would be proud indeed to see your style of "debate," but let's just leave it at this: you've amply demonstrated your crypto-fascist "debating" credentials for the ghost of Tail-Gun Joe, but I'm not going to get sucked into an open-ended borderless free-for-all with you that will go on forever to no good end. Nice try, though. Three cans of mud and a long-handled throwing spoon for you, you earned them.
-
<<Blowhard, if you're trying to show yourself to be a morally superior person, you're doing a very shitty job. >>
Schmuck, I am not "trying to show myself to be a morally superior person," I AM a morally superior person, and I don't give a flying fuck whether you agree with that or not. You are totally unqualified to pass moral judgment on a fucking snake, let alone a human being.
<<Look, lets cut to the chase. You're in here because you feel diminished in some way. You feel like you're less, didn't accomplish, whatever. In order to compensate you go around in here telling everyone how low they are and how high you are. >>
Well, that would be a good theory if "everyone" really meant "everyone," but apparently in your specialized psychopathic lingo, "everyone" seems to equate to "BSB." BSB is a pathetically conceited (for no good reason) ass-hole who thinks he has a God-given entitlement to dish it out, while at the same time enjoying a God-given immunity to any counter-criticism. As in this thread, for example: I am blinded by a black curtain of revenge (nice figure of speech, actually) stuck in the mud with Wee Wee the Nigger [sic] while enlightened souls such as yourself "WOOOOOSH" past on the highway of life. That, I guess, passes for legitimate "debating" style. However, if I should dare to suggest that you are "WOOSHING" blindly on to nowhere with no concern for justice for past crimes and atrocities, which OBVIOUSLY makes you my moral inferior, then I come in for a shitstorm of infantile abuse, and some free armchair psychoanalysis from a moron no less.
<<That's all you do in here. This women is a whore, that person is morally less, this person is an Uncle Tom, that lady is an Aunt Jemima. I mean, like, dude, it's pathetically obvious. >>
What is pathetically obvious is that your country sucks. The reason your country sucks is (a) people like you, (b) leaders or would-be leaders like Cain, who ARE both Uncle Toms and serial sexual predators, (c) moral imbeciles like you and many others, (d) foreign allies who are whores, (e) whoever else I labelled as a whore, as morally less, as an Uncle Tom or as an Aunt Jemima. Your country is full of them. THEY are the problem. Which is why I labelled them. There is no shortage of them. If you think I bad-mouth a lot of people in my postings, dude I have a major surprise for you: I haven't even begun to scratch the surface. I didn't even label 1% of the one per cent.
<<You aren't even an American, further, you don't even live here. >>
I know more about your fucking country, its crimes and its atrocities, than you will ever know. You should be thanking me for exposing the bullshit and the lies of your leaders and your media.
<<Why the hell else would you waste your time, and ours, in here, except but to fill some neurotic need? >>
Because of idiots like you. You are so fucking stupid and pathetic, that I feel you need to hear some real home truths, whether you like them or not.
-
Well, today,
An accuser stepped forward and actually delineated the scope of her accusation.
It sounds exactly like the stuff Bill Clinton was accused of , more serious than the accusations against Clarence Thomas by quite a bit. More serious than what Gary Heart was accused of even.
So now it comes down to who can be more convincing, The accusations against Gary Heart cost him his chance to be a presidential nominee when they were proven true , the worser accusations against Bill Clinton were proven true too late to spare us his election. The accusations against Clarence Thomas never came with any proof and became more and more disbeleavable as time passed .
I don't think that these accusations should be belieaved on face value alone, I don't see any proof or disproof being offered, so lacking proof Herman Cain still has a chance. The presumption of innocence is not only a grand principal of law, it is culturally accepted as proper.
But the last thing I want is a Republican version of Bill Clinton! If the accusers do come forward with proof , or perhaps even a rather more believable version of events , more pursuesive than the denials of Herman Cain, then the man is a has been just that fast.
On the other hand , supposing that the accustions are not only untrue, but provably so, then the backlash will be egg on the face of all Democrats and Herman Cain will have the vote of everyone not determined to vote for a vanilla face.
-
<<Those remarks have indeed been mentioned on a choice few other occasions to others, myself included, proclaiming how much smarter you are, how much "better" you see yourelf to be, than those who don't share your racist fringe ideology>>
I will make a well-meant constructive debating suggestion to you, which is that you confine yourself to debating what is in the same thread as your comment, because I personally have enough on my hands keeping up with current threads and I am NOT going to be put on the defensive against McCarthy-like accusations concerning undefined statements made at unspecified times to you "and others" (nameless of course) about my purported attributes and "racist fringe ideology." I know you're a good fascist and the late and unlamented Joe McCarthy would be proud indeed to see your style of "debate," but let's just leave it at this: you've amply demonstrated your crypto-fascist "debating" credentials for the ghost of Tail-Gun Joe, but I'm not going to get sucked into an open-ended borderless free-for-all with you that will go on forever to no good end. Nice try, though.
Speaking of nice try....putting aside the same lame SOP garbage of throwing around the facist term, when the racist term isn't working, nothing MacCarthy about highlighting your all too frequent efforts & references into thinking you're just that much smarter, just that much better, than those who aren't, you're only fooling yourself and anyone else ignorant enough to buy into your racist Anti-American rants
And it's priceless watching you proclaim how your racist references to Uncle Tom aren't racist because.....you say so, because, you're not a racist, because .....you say so, so they can't be. Red is blue, up is down, yada yada
News flash, as recalled by a recent post of yours, not too long ago...if the shoe fits
-
Again, WTF do any of Clinton's alleged misdeeds have to do with Cain's case? This is just a blatant red herring, a pure distraction, and there is absolutely no point in being dragged off in that direction.
Standards !
By one vote in the Senate Clinton avoided being tossed out .
And so a standard is set.
I do not expect any of these canadates to be perfection incarnate, and I want to have the best availible of the flawed .
But even when the choice is between the more or lessor evil there ought to be a lower limit below which no further consideration is given.
For Democrats the bar is pretty low, but they can't be much worse than Bill Clinton.
And Herman Cain is a Republican, therefore I want him to meet a higher standard. If I didn't I might as well be a Democrat.
If Herman Cain did something I would not do, I might forgive, if he did something Bill Clinton would not do nobody will vote for him.
-
<<Standards !
<<By one vote in the Senate Clinton avoided being tossed out .
<<And so a standard is set.>>
ROTFLMFAO! That is the most complete and utter bullshit I have seen to date on this subject. It's pure nonsense. How can anyone set a standard by non-conviction, whether by one vote or twenty?
From Wikipedia on the impeachment of Bill Clinton:
<<[Clinton] was impeached by the House of Representatives on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice on December 19, 1998, but acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999. Two other impeachment articles, a second perjury charge and a charge of abuse of power, failed in the House. >>
So on four charges totally unrelated to sexual harassment and sexual assault (which is what Herm the Perv is now said to have committed) Congress found that no impeachable offences had been committed. You don't set standards by what the guy was acquitted of, because the acquittal means he didn't do anything. Or at least, he didn't do anything that the Congress of the United States should penalize him for. The margin of acquittal is meaningless - - a differently constituted Congress might have acquitted by a wider margin, or might even have kicked him out of office. It's all pure speculation. The Congress, as duly constituted at the time, DID NOT FIND that any impeachable offence had been committed.
I think your real argument is non-existent. This whole non-stop attempt to drag Clinton into a case which has absolutely nothing to do with him - - the American people will set their own "standards" for who they want as President and the party sets its own standard for who it wants as its candidate - - is pure distraction. Clinton's case is clearly a red herring and as such should be ignored in the context of this discussion.
Clinton was NOT tossed out, so nothing that he allegedly did sets any standard, because none of it was admitted in the impeachment proceedings. The offences for which impeachment was instituted, BTW, were obstruct justice and
-
Clinton was not innocent of what he was accused of in any way.
Sexual Harrassment
Purjury
Guilt well established by the time the Senate voted.
So he was not exonerated , the senate found instead that his actions did not amount to an impeachable offence.
So from that point Sexual harrasment ,... Purjury.... are within the standards acceptable to the Presidency of the United States.
-
Sexual harassment did not form part of any charges against Clinton in the impeachment proceedings. I already posted in this thread the part of the Wikipedia article that specified all four charges. Two perjury, one each of obstruction of justice and abuse of power.
IIRC, by dismissing the indictment, the Congress did not distinguish between "never happened" and "NBD." Therefore, the Congress in its impeachment proceedings made no findings at all that (a) the alleged offences had occurred or (b) that the alleged offences, if committed, were not serious enough to warrant any kind of penalty.
Which is why, in the first place, I said that you could not establish standards based on what a person is not convicted of.
-
On the balance, Clinton was very close to being a truly great president. The Monica affair was a defect in his character, I suppose, but a defect that was not uncommon to other presidents, like Cleveland, Harding, FDR, and JFK and I am sure LBJ as well.
Cain does not have a lot of beneficial public service on his plus side. I can't say that Cain is better than Clinton, though.
As I said, I am all for him staying in the race. Perhaps it will be good for the country to have the voters, rather than the press, decide what the penalty for this sort of thing should be.
But as a candidate, I think that is is toast.
-
Sexual harassment did not form part of any charges against Clinton in the impeachment proceedings.
And yet were indeed the charges against him in his civil trial where his aquittal is spoiled by his purjury.
This purjury that he is unarguably guilty of was an important factor in his impeachment which but by a single vote finally did go is way.
Thus we have a standard set "high crimes and misdemors" suitable for impeachment do not include purjury nor sexual harrassment.
There is no question at all about "never happened", proof abounded by that time, NBD is the remainder.
-
On the balance, Clinton was very close to being a truly great president.
Clinton will be remembered for winning two wars with record low casualtys on the American side. Whoops... no, I guess not you forgot that one yourself today.The Monica affair was a defect in his character, I suppose, but a defect that was not uncommon to other presidents, like Cleveland, Harding, FDR, and JFK and I am sure LBJ as well.
I think you should leave Cleavland out of this list , but you are substantially correct , feet of clay do run in the presidency.
Cain does not have a lot of beneficial public service on his plus side. I can't say that Cain is better than Clinton, though.
I hope Cain will ,as a mathmatician, understand what he is doing to the economy.
As I said, I am all for him staying in the race. Perhaps it will be good for the country to have the voters, rather than the press, decide what the penalty for this sort of thing should be.
I like that.
But as a candidate, I think that is is toast.
I think perhaps.
But Gary Hart was not tosted untill he was caught red handed , and Clinton rode reasonable doubt right into the Whitehouse.
As a Republican Herman Cain will have to pass a higher bar most of the time , but if his momentum really gets up we can reinvoke the Reagan teflon.
If proof piles up and becomes persuasive you will be right, but having a woman or ten make an allegation isn't gonna be enough.
-
<<Thus we have a standard set "high crimes and misdemors" suitable for impeachment do not include purjury nor sexual harrassment.>>
Sexual harassment was never before the House or the Senate. So it was absolutely impossible for any standard to be set on that charge.
Perjury, on the evidence before the Senate and the House, was never found to have occurred. Hence the dismissal of the bill of impeachment in the Senate and the House's refusal to pass along the second perjury charge to the Senate. Since there was no finding of perjury by the Senate in either of the two charges, perjury was never established in the impeachment proceedings and no standard was set for perjury.
<<There is no question at all about "never happened", proof abounded by that time, NBD is the remainder.>>
Well, wherever "proof abounded," it sure as hell didn't "abound" in the Senate of the United States Congress during Bill's impeachment and so the Senate never found in its impeachment proceedings that Bill C. had committed perjury. So no standard was set there for perjury, either for or against.
-
Even so, he was guilty of sexual harasment . He was guilty of purjury.
If these cannot even be made into charges during an ongoing purjury proceding then they are NBD and within the standards, sic stare decisis.
Semper in excretia sumus solim profundum variat.
This could be on my headstone.
Man,... some of these are funny.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(full)#S (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(full)#S)
-
<<Standards !
<<By one vote in the Senate Clinton avoided being tossed out .
<<And so a standard is set.>>
ROTFLMFAO! That is the most complete and utter bullshit I have seen to date on this subject. It's pure nonsense. How can anyone set a standard by non-conviction, whether by one vote or twenty?
From Wikipedia on the impeachment of Bill Clinton:
<<[Clinton] was impeached by the House of Representatives on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice on December 19, 1998, but acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999. Two other impeachment articles, a second perjury charge and a charge of abuse of power, failed in the House. >>
So on four charges totally unrelated to sexual harassment and sexual assault (which is what Herm the Perv is now said to have committed) Congress found that no impeachable offences had been committed. You don't set standards by what the guy was acquitted of, because the acquittal means he didn't do anything. Or at least, he didn't do anything that the Congress of the United States should penalize him for. The margin of acquittal is meaningless - - a differently constituted Congress might have acquitted by a wider margin, or might even have kicked him out of office. It's all pure speculation. The Congress, as duly constituted at the time, DID NOT FIND that any impeachable offence had been committed.
I think your real argument is non-existent. This whole non-stop attempt to drag Clinton into a case which has absolutely nothing to do with him - - the American people will set their own "standards" for who they want as President and the party sets its own standard for who it wants as its candidate - - is pure distraction. Clinton's case is clearly a red herring and as such should be ignored in the context of this discussion.
Clinton was NOT tossed out, so nothing that he allegedly did sets any standard, because none of it was admitted in the impeachment proceedings. The offences for which impeachment was instituted, BTW, were obstruct justice and
Clinton was NoT tossed out , so everything Clinton did is within the standards of qualifying for the presidency. Especially since impeachment proceedings were performed and everything he did that didn't even make it into the proceedings must meet the new minimum standard.
What Clinton will be remembered for most In my opinion is new minimum standards.