Cain on Foreign Policy

[sirs]

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

[BT]

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.

[Plane]

      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?

[BT]

He is accused of inciting feelings of awkwardness and discomfort amongst the complainants.

the new sheriff scene from blazing saddles

[Kramer]

It's amazing seeing the true color coming out in these so-called diverse liberals with regards to Mr Cain.

[BSB]

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

[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

[BT]

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.

[Kramer]

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.

[BSB]

Interesting, BT, do have a copy of that speech attributed to him? And what did he do for the dept. of the Navy?

BSB

[BT]

Post 31 and post 33 in this thread will provide the info you are looking for

[Michael Tee]

<<[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? ? ? ? ?

[BSB]

Read the speech. I stand corrected, BT. Point made. So than, it's his senility we need to worry about. Even more dangerous.


BSB

[BT]

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.

[sirs]

<<[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