Democrats are insane about Cain

[ShinerTX]

So here's a key and related question. Why is Bill Clinton generally held in high regard? Is there a bigger liar anywhere? Before he was ever elected President, there were plenty of stories about his rounds with the ladies while governor of Arkansas. They weren't always consensual either.

 

[majorwhiteapples]

Clinton is just a better liar than Cain.

 

[buckhorn]

If you can win hearts while lying then you will be forgiven for your lies. Clinton and Reagan are two great examples. If you are still being tested, still trying to win hearts, and your lies gum your forward motion up, you sink. Ask Gary Hart and, now, likely Herman Cain. A corollary of this is that, if you look confident while lying, then a certain section of the public will be put on their haunches. If you look unsure and incompetent, then no one really supports you and a coward's bravura comes to attack in the guise of indignation.

 

[majorwhiteapples]

Please tell us about Reagan's lies about women? I would love to hear this....

 

[Satchel]

His lies were much more substantial in that they dealt with governing.

 

[buckhorn]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[majorwhiteapples]

And the Spin police take the field!!!!!

Watch the clowns climb in and out of the car ladies and gentlemen!!!!!

 

[buckhorn]

If any clown has shown up it is Cain himself. He does not seem to be handling the process with any skill or planning whatsoever now that he is a serious candidate rather than a cut out marching into the ring on a lark. A couple of upper cuts and he is looking like he wants out. The Republican field is so weak that this guy was seen as a potential player.

Finished. He's done. If you look like a bad liar you look untruthful first and incompetent second. Herman Cain is moving toward the bad liar, poor sport camp. Ruh ro, Raggy. Maybe Perry will stop speaking in tongues and stepping on his own dick long enough to give Romney a run for his money. Maybe.

I squeeze my nose at you! Honk honk!

 

[Bevo Incognito]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Satchel]

Then the right had better find something about Willard it likes.

 

[majorwhiteapples]

The Spin Police...........

Give me a bad liar for a poltico anytime, at least I will know the level of the truth meter.

I can't stand the politico's like Obama that will tell you that he wants a Balanced Budget and then does.........what? I will leave it up to the clowns in the car to answer that any way they want!!!!!

 

[Crockett]

Getting all the bad information out at one time certainly helps the public hear it and get over it. The constantly changing story line and the drip drip drip of new facts and information intensifies the media focus. I remember as a junior high and high school student watching Richard Nixon is a series of speeches. When it starts sounding like "OK -- this time I telling the truth" it's kinda hard to believe it.

 

[MojoMan]

Here is a very good evaluation of this little episode, at least so far:

In reply to:

---

---

---

 

[Michtex]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Satchel]

Ita appears ol' Herman has turned out to be quite the trollop.

 

[Michtex]

I was wondering when the lawyer in the "Old Freak Nasty" case was going to show up.

In reply to:

---

---

 

[MojoMan]

Here is another excellent article on this in the Boston Herald today:

In reply to:

---

---

---

 

[Crockett]

I honestly don't know what to think on this one. I've heard anecdotal stories about innocent men victimized by women who scream harrassment. I've never known one. I have know three people (not friends) who were serial harrassers -- the worst kind of bully and jerk. All three were fired from executive positions for sexually harrassing women, and a couple were even getting sexual favors from people below them on the org chart, One was fired the same day he got two black eyes from the husband of a victim. I'm sure when the harrassers tell the stories it's spun to sound like they were the victims, but they were all three guilty of vile behavior and didn't make much attempt to be sly about it. I can't believe they ever thought they could get away with it, but then again, I'm not working with the same ego or sense of entitlement these men possessed.

 

[Perham1]

Herm is toast.

You can stick a fork in that.

 

[Crockett]

Mojoman: Anthony Weiner and Elliott Spitzer need to read that article. Seems they thought they were toast because of sexual indiscretions. David vitter, a Louisiana Republican has been rehabbed after scandal -- but I hate to break up a "the liberal media will never treat us fairly" pity party that conservative media broadcast, telecast, put in print, on the internet and in the bookstores 24 hours a day seven days a week.

 

[Horn6721]

I don't know what actually happened in any of those incidents, ONLY Cain and the accusers know.
But I do know there are red flags around the 2 known accusers.
Karen Krausharr in addition to working for the current Admin not only accused Cain ( the accusations were founf to be unfounded but she did receive a settlement) also accused her next employer, after Cain)
Wapo link on Ap bylineThe Link

The other known accuser has a very shaky background.

The sad thing is this hurts legitimate complaints.
But Herman is done

 

[Perham1]

Karen Krausharr in addition to working for the current Admin not only accused Cain ( the accusations were founf to be unfounded but she did receive a settlement) also accused her next employer, after Cain)

Wow, she simply must be lying then. Anybody who makes two claims really sends up the red flags.

I agree, Herm is done.

 

[MojoMan]

One of the three women who signed a confidentiality agreement in connection with the resolution of their sexual harassment claims against Herman Cain has now been revealed. And what do you know, she works for President Obama in the Obama administration. And of course Sharon Bialek's charges are being promoted by liberal activist attorney Gloria Allred.
Coincidence? Maybe. Then again, maybe not.

In reply to:

---

---

---

 

[Michtex]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Perham1]

So because she works for Obama means her claim back then was bogus?

I think Marge Gunderson had a good line for that type of reasoning.

 

[MojoMan]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Perham1]

Based on what I'm reading from you mojo, I don't know if you are really following along.

Here's a hint: am I saying (as you seem to be) that b/c she know works for Obama, that her prior claim is automatically bogus?

There are some rather basic logic principles you're violating.

 

[MojoMan]

Pernham,

I am not saying her claims are automatically bogus. I am raising questions about the source of these claims and therefore the possible motives behind them.

I answered your question. Now please answer mine.

Are you saying that you believe her claim is valid?

 

[Perham1]

You're still not following.

My response was very specific to you: I do not agree, as you seem to do, that just because the woman now works for Obama that her prior claim was invalid.

I was saying nothing about the validity of her claim, only your reasoning used to dismiss her claim. Her claim may be bogus, but it sure as hell needs a better reason than "she now works for Obama" to dismiss it.

 

[MojoMan]

Pernham,

Obviously it is you who is not following. As I said quite plainly in my previous post, I do not believe her claim was automatically invalid and I did not "dismiss" it. As a result, it is clear that you are just spewing stuff out of your tail-pipe here.

What is interesting is the people who believe her claim is valid, especially since we do not even know what her claim actually is.