I didn’t see it, and have no opinion on the accuser’s credibility, but I think that it is diminished significantly by having Gloria Allred (who essentially put out a casting call for such people a few days ago) as her representative. If true, it reduces my respect for Mr. Cain significantly, but short of the general, he was never going to get my vote anyway. There are much stronger reasons not to think him presidential timber.
And no, don’t expect to see any opinions here on the Michael Jackson manslaughter trial, either, other than that I regret that it is getting so much media attention.
“Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find.”
This post is completely unintelligible to me.. you’re obviously talking about some recent pop culture event, which you don’t feel the need to reiterate. What I find amusing is that you seem to be implying that you’re above it.. well, you’re still talking about it aren’t you? You still know that it happened and have absorbed the details, haven’t you? Meanwhile, those of us who are much more divorced from the babbling madhouse of mainstream media culture are scratching our collective head wondering wtf you’re going on about. In short: you’re one of them, and you always will be until you turn off the tv.
Herman Cain stands accused of making a woman feel bad about herself — a fairly standard female reaction to a strong man who fails to make a pickup when she was expecting one; or who makes a pickup, and then makes a pickup of someone else; or who makes a pickup and then does not follow through, perhaps only joking; or who is already married and faithful to his wife.
That is a pretty snarky reaction to what Mr. Cain stands accused of.
What is alleged is well beyond the off-color or locker-room joke in the workplace level, and goes beyond the woman-mad-at-guy-for-date-gone-bad level. Yeah, Mr. Clinton is said to have done such and more so, but do we want Mr. Clinton on our team?
Perhaps I’m old fashioned, but I still believe in quaint notion that a person is considered innocent until proven quilty and the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the defendent. Yes, Cain is accused of being a cad. There is no proof of these claims, just he said/she said.
With Clinton, there was the stained blue dress along with perjury and obstruction of justice. Liberals and organizations like NOW said that he deserved “one free grope” and attacked his assusers. The double standard is rather stark.
That is a pretty snarky reaction to what Mr. Cain stands accused of.
Nonsense. If I were to say, “I heard that Paul fellow propositioned a minor” that would be a serious accusation. Some might argue even more serious than what Cain’s been accused. Does that mean you would no longer qualify to run for public office?
And the comparison to Clinton is absurd.
I haven’t had the teevee on.
Dingo ate your TV?
Cue the Taiwanese animators.
Well, I don’t think Micheal Jackson did it, as he is dead.
Just what they want you to think…
Yep, the proof is all over the net!
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=594&q=michael+jackson+alive&btnG=Google+Search
In summary, Cain is accused of making a lecherous advance, but backing off when told no. Given the history of Ms. Allred scandal mongering, I’m skeptical of that much.
Let’s assume that the accusations are true, but that Cain wins the GOP nomination anyway and the presidential election becomes a choice between Cain and the Red Diaper Baby. If you value liberty, how important would Cain’s sexual harrassment become then in the grand scheme of things? I’m one of those weirdoes who believes his life belongs to hiomself and not to the State, so for me the most important question in a presidential race is: Which one of these candidates, once in the White House, is more likely to leave me mostly alone? Which one will lift my wallet the fewer number of times? Which one is more likely not to confiscate my guns and my gold?
A lot of statist feminists continued to support Bill Clinton because–as much as they may have found him personally loathesome–they figured he was more likely than the other guy to further the statist agenda. That seems like a logical choice to me. I don’t like sexual harrassers, but I find it a relatively minor sin compared to sabotaging American liberty and turning the US into Noret Venezuela.
Remember that site that mixes up Al Gore and Unabomber quotes and quizzes on which is which? They could do the same with accusations against Herman Cain and TSA.
Got the idea after reading this.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/woman-calims-tsa-agent-reached-up-skirt-and-violently-frisked-her/