Author Topic: Cain on Foreign Policy  (Read 25663 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Cain on Foreign Policy
« Reply #165 on: November 06, 2011, 09:51:50 PM »
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.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Cain on Foreign Policy
« Reply #166 on: November 06, 2011, 09:58:50 PM »


<<I have already gotten a dollors worth of answer from a nickles worth of question.>>

Jeeziz, sounds like I oughtta start charging you guys.

Kramer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5762
  • Repeal ObamaCare
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Cain on Foreign Policy
« Reply #167 on: November 06, 2011, 10:01:08 PM »


<<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.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Cain on Foreign Policy
« Reply #168 on: November 06, 2011, 10:19:36 PM »
<<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.

BSB

  • Guest
Re: Cain on Foreign Policy
« Reply #169 on: November 06, 2011, 10:21:57 PM »
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

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Cain on Foreign Policy
« Reply #170 on: November 06, 2011, 10:26:25 PM »
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?
Quote

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?
Quote

<<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?
Quote
     <<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.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Cain on Foreign Policy
« Reply #171 on: November 06, 2011, 10:36:53 PM »
<<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.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Cain on Foreign Policy
« Reply #172 on: November 06, 2011, 10:41:58 PM »
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?

Kramer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5762
  • Repeal ObamaCare
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Cain on Foreign Policy
« Reply #173 on: November 06, 2011, 11:39:04 PM »
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
« Last Edit: November 07, 2011, 08:39:27 PM by BT »

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Cain on Foreign Policy
« Reply #174 on: November 07, 2011, 12:25:01 AM »
<<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.






BSB

  • Guest
Re: Cain on Foreign Policy
« Reply #175 on: November 07, 2011, 12:44:20 AM »
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.



Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Cain on Foreign Policy
« Reply #176 on: November 07, 2011, 12:55:04 AM »
<<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.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27077
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Cain on Foreign Policy
« Reply #177 on: November 07, 2011, 01:02:46 AM »
Can always count at the lunatic left to profess how much smarter, greater, and better they are, to those, who aren't
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27077
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Cain on Foreign Policy
« Reply #178 on: November 07, 2011, 01:20:08 AM »
<< 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.

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Cain on Foreign Policy
« Reply #179 on: November 07, 2011, 01:25:49 AM »
<<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.