Reply With Quote
In 30 minutes or less?
Oh wait...
that's Dominoes.
Maybe it's the 696?
In 30 minutes or less?
Oh wait...
that's Dominoes.
She is only looking for publicity. If this was such an issue, she would have come out with this years ago. I mean look at the ing lawyer she has for further proof of the seeking publicity.
This victim of sexual assault sought Cain out at a Tea Party event and hugged him? Something doesn't add up.
http://www.suntimes.com/8592168-417/...month-ago.html
"she was asking for it"
"if she doesn't want to be attacked, she shouldn't try to be good looking"
"boys will be boys (and all wimmen are s dying to be fncked)"
ad nauseam, as the usual defenses of men's sexual attacks roll out.
There are too many "she saids" to believe his "he saids". Repugs attacked Clinton, but defend their sexual predator.
Cain'tEscapeIt is pretty stupid, saying even his wife Cain't believe he was capable of Other-Women's-Genitals groping.She'd be the last to know, or "believe".
You think Clinton is a sexual predator?
By the way, DNA trumps "she said's".
sure, Clinton obviously was a skirt chaser. Sorta comes with the egocentric power-chaser personality.
Cain's initial reaction on Jimmy Kimmel was total denial, so his press conference this afternoon will be interesting. I don't expect him to say anything other than he's innocent, but I wonder if he'll even acknowledge the meeting.
there is nothing tea baggers hate more than the thought of a black man on white woman.
Victims of sexual harassment, like their aggressors, are logically consistent without fail..
Liking and admiring one's attacker, is an impossibility. It's never happened before.
Taking a poll.
Do any people believe BOTH this girl AND Paula Jones.
Or does anyone believe the stories from both of the Men (Bill Clinton and Hermann Cain) involved in each of those women's tales?
If you believe one and not the other; do your political views, or party affiliation, align with the man you DO believe?
I figure the last premise is going to be accurate for over 90% of posters and Americans. You all suck. This is a pointless, ridiculous exorcize. What ever did, or didn't happen is impossible to know; and anyone's opinion of it will be clouded by their tribal membership. Allred, after all, took THIS case, but was nowhere to be found for Paula Jones.
Morris ‘looking forward’ to seeing Cain’s accuser naked in Playboy
====
You Stay Classy, Repugs
I don't find Cain believable, and that has nothing to do with tribal membership -- I didn't find Clinton believable either.
New York Post Columnist Smears Cain Accuser As "Shameless" Gold Digging "Tart"
From Peyser's "Jobless & Shameless Gal Going For Gold" column [emphasis added]
Sharon Bialek is 50, out of work and, according to one who knows her, she's a smooth operator living way above her means. From the look of her heavily painted face, she's also soon to be in acute need of a new tub of eyeliner.
Peyser then quoted a vague, nameless source (i.e. "someone who knows Bialek"), who promptly trashed the woman as a freeloader:
According to someone who knows Bialek: "She has a very infectious personality. It's easy to see how she won [Cain] over. But the reality of her situation is -- she's a complete gold digger. It's all about the money."
The friend said she comes from a lower-middle-income family, but lives in a posh apartment running from bill collectors. "Most of her jobs ended in termination. It's always the employer's fault, not hers.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011110...County+Fair%29
==========
Murdoch's is always classy. He knows what sells.
the VRWC (Mellon Scaife) bribed Paula Jones to come out against Clinton, covering her legal expenses.
What Dems/liberal/union bribed Bialek?
Herman Cain Slams Accuser For...Having Financial Difficulties?
: The accuser, Sharon Bialek, can't be trusted because she went broke a couple times. As spokesman J.D. Gordon argued in a statement, "his opponents convinced a woman with a long history of financial difficulties, including personal bankruptcy, to falsely accuse the Republican frontrunner of events occurring over a decade ago for which there is no record, nor was there ever even a complaint filed."
========
So, a woman with financial difficulties is fair game for sexual predators, because her "she said" is easily discounted by his "he said".
I thought Clinton was lying, and I think Cain is lying.
Having said that, lying about personal matters is not a major factor for me in evaluating a candidate. IMO many politicians (including Obama) lie about being devout Christians - given their levels of education, it is very likely that a significant % of them are atheists. But declaring oneself as an atheist is political suicide in America, so they all lie. Just like Cain is lying/covering up because this will end up costing him votes.
So Cain lying about personal matters doesn't disqualify him in my view. What does disqualify him is the fact that he is a complete idiot who doesn't understand issues such as pro-life vs pro-choice, separation of church and state, the basics of foreign policy, etc.
Not sure if this answers your question, but I didn't believe Clinton (or Edwards) one iota either.
Neither man tells a straight tale, both have been hounded by a steady drip of accusations. In my opinion the former is more telling and more unforgivable.
Wow. Didn't think so many would line up with disbelieving EITHER man. The charges, ultimately, didn't fatally would Clinton. Will it be different for Cain?
I honestly couldn't care less about any of this.
tbh, if it's just this woman, I would be severely more skeptic. But you're talking other 3 do ented payoffs of hush money for arguably the same "crime".
Separation of Church and State? Just curious, to what are you referring? I obviously missed something.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
