03 Nov 2011, 10:48 am
03 Nov 2011, 1:50 pm
03 Nov 2011, 2:33 pm
03 Nov 2011, 2:38 pm
03 Nov 2011, 3:36 pm
03 Nov 2011, 3:44 pm
Ragtime wrote:
The liberals in the media are playing a variation on the "race card" -- a variation they also used against Thomas. I call it the "player card."
It goes something like this: "Herman Cain is black. There are allegations of sex harassment. You connect the dots."
Never could mere insinuations without any specific claim ("a gesture non-sexual in nature"), any identifiable witness (where is she/they?), nor the reporters even having talked to the alleged victim(s) (which they admit they did not), nor any actual documentation (where is the written agreement? Attorney says neither he nor his client even have a copy anymore!) have gotten anyone in this kind of trouble without it being dismissed as heresay immediately -- unless that person already had something about him or her which those throwing the darts already had found suspect. But what was there to already find suspect about Herman Cain? How does he stand out among the presidential candidates in any negative way to anyone -- except to racists?
By the way, Cain recently said that the mere $35,000 agreement (historically too small for a guilt-indicating sex harassment settlement) was actually part of a severance agreement, and was not itself a settlement or pay-off regarding the woman's sex harassment claim. Basically, "Here's your severance package. And, by the way, this other matter is closed -- agreed?" And she signed it. And he did not. The company signed it, and sealed it. So how is he supposed to answer details about a fictitious allegation made by someone who, as far as could be determined, was found to be lying, and he can't even read the document now? And the witch is guilty if she floats, blah, blah, blah........
It goes something like this: "Herman Cain is black. There are allegations of sex harassment. You connect the dots."
Never could mere insinuations without any specific claim ("a gesture non-sexual in nature"), any identifiable witness (where is she/they?), nor the reporters even having talked to the alleged victim(s) (which they admit they did not), nor any actual documentation (where is the written agreement? Attorney says neither he nor his client even have a copy anymore!) have gotten anyone in this kind of trouble without it being dismissed as heresay immediately -- unless that person already had something about him or her which those throwing the darts already had found suspect. But what was there to already find suspect about Herman Cain? How does he stand out among the presidential candidates in any negative way to anyone -- except to racists?
By the way, Cain recently said that the mere $35,000 agreement (historically too small for a guilt-indicating sex harassment settlement) was actually part of a severance agreement, and was not itself a settlement or pay-off regarding the woman's sex harassment claim. Basically, "Here's your severance package. And, by the way, this other matter is closed -- agreed?" And she signed it. And he did not. The company signed it, and sealed it. So how is he supposed to answer details about a fictitious allegation made by someone who, as far as could be determined, was found to be lying, and he can't even read the document now? And the witch is guilty if she floats, blah, blah, blah........
no one is persecuting him this is Republican Primary Dirty Tricks not a "Liberal" Media Hack job.
quit crying
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
03 Nov 2011, 6:19 pm
03 Nov 2011, 8:14 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
03 Nov 2011, 8:45 pm
03 Nov 2011, 8:49 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
03 Nov 2011, 9:47 pm
03 Nov 2011, 11:02 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
03 Nov 2011, 11:11 pm
03 Nov 2011, 11:13 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
The hints at whatever Cain may or may not have done amount to less than this, which Obama did on video:
And not to derail the train off the track, but this is appropriate...
Was not President Obama accused of having gay sex and doing drugs with a male prostitute...the male prostitute coming out publicly and willing to submit to a polygraph to lend credibility to his accusation?
How fast did that story get pushed to the floor and ignored?
That kind of accusation is 100 times worse than what is being pushed against Cain, and the media is in a feeding frenzy over it?
Only difference? Obama is a liberal. Cain is a conservative.
As I recall, that "breaking story" was the horses**t you normally find on the front pages of supermarket tabloids. Did even Fox give this crap any air time?
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Well, the notorious supermarket tabloid The National Enquirer did break the Jonathan Edwards affair story, and it turned out to not only have a TON of evidence, but was absolutely true.
This while mainstream media sat on the story details they had, and refused to publish any.
A presidential candidate cheating on his dying wife is very newsworthy, because any elected presidential candidate needs to be at least basically moral.
As I recall, it wasn't The Enquirer, but rather an even less reliable source which had also claimed Bush and the First lady during W's presidency were getting a divorce, and had written the same about the Obama's. So while the Enquirer has somehow become a halfway respectable news source, that hardly applies to any of the others.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
The National Enquirer having one decent news story isn't really much to boast about when you consider the proportion of utter garbage they have in comparison. You have to expect at least once they'll have something right but considering their track record I wouldn't immediately count them as among the news sources that are trustworthy
Exactly!
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Uh you two missed Ragtime's point. He was not saying National Enquirer is a credible news source.
He's saying that the left-wing drive-by media has even less credibility than the National Enquirer.
Nope, I didn't miss it, I just don't agree. The National Enquirer is garbage, even Fox News has more credibility, which further has even less credibility than most of what you refer to as "left-wing media". Think about it, Fox News also passed up the Edwards story before the Enquirer,
all that proves is they're willing to publish anything with even less context or validation than Fox. In this case they actually happened to have it right. Good for them. They still suck big time
03 Nov 2011, 11:14 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
03 Nov 2011, 11:20 pm
