The Lynching of Herman Cain - Page 2

If I ever meet Herman Cain, I'll grab his head and pull it toward my crotch and say, "You wanted my vote, right?"

Let the record show that SDW is obviously demonstrating a double standard as EVIDENCED in my post above.

It is absurd. You don't have to prove religious devotion in a court of law. You do have to prove crimes.

Who said anything about having to meet him? If I ever see you running for office, I'll declare you raped me while eating a puppy and clubbing a seal.

The allegation is the only thing that matters.

That's all the left has. When the election season really kicks into high gear, Obama will never be able to run on his pathetic record or his complete lack of accomplishments, so Obama and his supporters will be fiercely attacking anybody who challenges him.

No matter who runs against Obama, I'm sure that they will be a racist, or at least that's what the Obamabots will claim. Being a racist in the USA in 2011 is actually a good thing, especially when it's a liberal calling you a racist.

Yes, it's tiresome that you don't think rationally and can't see how your hypocrisy undermines much of what you have to say.

Except that when the allegations were made, there was absolutely no indication Cain would ever have any political life. You guys act like these allegations were made AFTER Cain came forward politically. Additionally, there was more than just one victim.

Maybe he forgot that he had been accused of sexual impropriety 'cause of all those things bouncing around in his head. Yeah, that's it. That's the ticket.

You might have had a point to make but since you rape puppies and murder seals, you can't even be part of the discussion.

This is just a distraction. Cain won't get elected for a variety of other reasons. But people like drama. It's good for ratings.

You know which candidate the media fears the most? Ron Paul. He's got no dirt to dig up. No intrigue. No sensationalism. Just a regular guy who's been on message and consistent in his politics for 30 years. And he's the only candidate who is proposing substantial and real change from the status quo.

He can't be bought. And worse, he's horrible for ratings.

If any of your political beliefs are even remotely motivated by your religious belief, no. You don't get to play with the adult rules when they suit you while you are still living in a child's fantasy world.

And since your position on gay marriage, among others, rests upon the invisible and nonexistent foundation of religious belief...no, you don't get to sit at the adult table.

Yeah, that's it.

Don't you love how he begs the question that Obama somehow didn't do a proper job assessing the situation?

Yeah, that's not what gathering one's thoughts looks like. Wasn't there some Obama teleprompter thread in which much less pronounced stammering resulted in HUUUUUGE condemnations and ridicule from our friendly neighborhood right wing wankers?

Actually you forget that Cain has run for office twice before. They were never brought up then but then again he never had the possibility of running against Obama who has made his entire career out of getting people out with sexual claims.



Did he say there were 57 states or something?

His teleprompter must have malfunctioned.

He didn't do a proper job of assessing or addressing the situation. If you claim he did then feel free to present your proof. Make sure it justifies murdering foreign leaders without even consulting Congress.


I'd suggest you link to it because your characterizations of other's actions is way off base.

What I remember is a thread comparing the gaffes of Palin and the gaffes of Obama and then showing how the media portrayed one as a complete idiot and other other as the a complete genius.

We see the same thing now. Obama makes gaffes all the time. Meanwhile Perry and Cain are idiots if they stumble even one time.

If it didn't matter for Bill Clinton, why should it matter for Herman Cain?

For fuck's sake, we've seen VIDEO of ghaddafi's murder, and it wasn't at the hands of the USA. We have at least two women who Cain settled with over sexual harassment cases and you call the allegations against him a 'lynching' but then you go and accuse Obama of murder when we have incontrovertible proof that Gaddafi was murdered at the hands of his own countrymen?

It's surreal.

Consent. I know you're not too stupid to see the difference.

The only exception would be Paula Jones. Which was fully investigated and cost Clinton greatly, though Clinton admitted no wrongdoing. I'd say it DID work. And the Paula Jones allegations were made after Clinton was already president, hence motive.

So just for future reference, when we support, arm or assist those that do the murder, we aren't in any form or fashion responsible for anything.

You've got to be shitting me tonton. It was, to use some nice Bush-isms, a coalition of the willing who took it upon themselves to attack Libya and force a regime change there. He was killed by his own people when forced out of his compound by gee, I don't know...a naval blockade, 110 or so tomahawk missles being lobbed at him, assort air strikes had absolutely nothing to do with it.

I mean seriously, this can't be an honest or real reply.


Cain personally had nothing to do with it. Their suits were not against Herman Cain and were not settled with Herman Cain.


What is surreal is to see how intent makes you complete unable to assign blame depending upon the circumstance. Obama is in no form or fashion responsible for the outcome of actions undertaken by the military when he is commander in chief when he declares they must undertake the actions. Meanwhile Herman Cain is completely responsible for allegations against him when no one can prevent someone from making an allegation.

Cain was accused of sexual harassment. It had nothing to do with him? Seriously?

So when a woman sues your apartment association and says "Nick T. Rumpt put his hand under my dress when I asked him if I could make a late rent payment" then you can tell your wife that the woman's complaint is against the association, and 'doesn't have anything to do with you'.

So Juanita Broderick consented?

You must not realize you are defending a rapist now.

Cain is a typical rapist/malestor type and should should do time. Nuff said on this shit.

Broaddrick gave sworn testimony under penalty of purjury that she never had inappropriate relations with Clinton. You don't see the problem here?

You're simply a two-faced hypocrite.

She gave that testimony in 1997 while the man was President. You don't see a bit of a power disparity there? You certainly would if it were a Republican. You certainly would if it were called the 99% versus the 1%.

The man straight up lied about his relations with Monica Lewinsky as well. Lewinsky also lied under oath under pressure from Clinton. Clinton was disbarred for his actions and if you claim a President doesn't have more power than Broderick and couldn't rain hell down on her for alleging rape then you are delusional.

Call me whatever you want, I'm not the one defending a rapist, serial adulterer and man accused of sexual assault.

I suggest you do a little research about the credibility of Broaddrick and her 'witnesses'. You evidently either don't know, or don't care. Meanwhile, Broddrick claimed the events in question happened before Clinton was Governor, much less President. Why didn't she speak up then? Maybe because she hadn't made friends with the sisters who hated Clinton for commuting the sentence of their father's killer. Maybe because she was too busy cheating on her hisband with someone else (not Clinton). Why didn't she pursue her case when Clinton was out of office? Maybe because she had never been consistent with her story, to the point that Kenneth Starr didn't think she was a credible witness.

Go ahead, take the story of Broddrick and compare it to the Cain scandal. Run with it.

I love how we have come around to Tonton blaming the woman for not stepping up and doing something then, as if that somehow lessens the reality of what may have happened... He has never met her, know what the news has reported and goes based on a politically motivated investigation that was looking for the strongest case to make the allegations stick. None of that report, that I am aware of, stated that her testimony was false, just that it was too weak to use and have it easily stick.

There is some hypocrisy here... And it is blatant...

That's exactly right. So why then are YOU claiming that her testimony WAS false?

I am not, your post however did imply that.

So her testimony, her only testimony, was possibly true? Then we agree. I'm saying that either her testimony was true (likely) and she later lied in her television interview, or she lied in her testimony. Either way, she's a proven liar. She is also a proven adulteress, and she's proven to have connections that have a personal vendetta against Bill Clinton. So exactly how is this a fair comparison to the Cain situation?

Or are you saying that television is a more reliable source of information than legal process?

I don't have religious beliefs.


Go ahead. Reject that the Earth revolves around the Sun, too. Won't make a lick of difference. A big, fucked up Santa Claus for adults. He knows when you are sleeping. He knows when you're awake. He knows when you've been bad or good so BE GOOD OR I WILL CONDEMN YOU TO AN ETERNITY OF TORTURE! EH, FORGET THE BE GOOD PART! JUST LOVE ME! LOOOOVE MEEEEE! I NEED WORSHIP ALTHOUGH I AM A PERFECT BEING WHO CAN'T GET HIS OWN CREATION RIGHT SO HAS TO KILL EVERYONE AND THEN KILL MYSELF TO MAKE UP FOR MY SHITTY CREATION'S FAULTS!


Bullshit.

You are a sick dude!

If they are suing the association they wouldn't be suing because of my individual actions but for allowing, creating or tolerating an environment in which the actions could occur.

That is precisely the point you fail to see. The association Cain was heading was hit with a couple of these, the first couple paid out and then the next few clearly went away because that door of opportunity had closed. I'm certain during that time employee handbooks were rewritten, employee guidelines, etc all were revised.

No civil action was taken against Cain. No criminal charges were filed against him even with one person clearly claiming what amounted to sexual assault. No association would be required to defend that nor protect the person against it.

Look at the Penn State example with the coach there. Will Penn State be sued for tolerating an environment that allowed those actions? Absolutely. However the coach himself was the one arrested and that coach will also be open to civil suits for damages related to his actions.

No suits or charges have ever occurred against Cain.


You could say the same thing about Cain only the charges alleged and the witnesses themselves are much less credible. Every person originates out of Chicago. The only time they ever occurred was in this narrow frame and it was the association that was sued, not Cain. The people had years to press their case and the man ran for office on two prior occasions. It is only when Cain hit top three that the Democratic machine there did what it does and found or made up some charges.

Have you ever looked into how Obama became Senator of Illinois? They had Alan Keyes have to carpetbag his way into the state after the Republican candidate Jack Ryan dropped out. He dropped out when his divorce papers from Jeri Ryan (aka 7 of 9 of Star Trek fame) were unsealed against the protests of both of them and any claim, allegation or even discussion became public fodder.

This is the way Obama has always won. He disqualified all the candidates when running for State Senator. Look it up. Note the pattern and see the problem isn't with Cain.


You apply a very uneven standard including one against the victim that you don't apply against Clinton. She was never disbarred for perjury. Clinton was or did you forget that.


She's a proven liar. So is Clinton. She's a proven adulteress. So is Clinton. How is it a fair conparison to the Cain situation because first of all, she's not the only one. She's but the tip of the iceberg. She wasn't even lying to protect herself but to prevent Paula Jones from having her suit for sexual harassment go forward which by the way was the same reason Lewinsky lied as well.

Rememeber that old Democratic refrain from them. "It's just sex. It has nothing to do with how the man will perform as President. Private life and professional life shouldn't even be considered the same."

Oh, but that tired bit only applies when it is a Democrat. Make this a woman accusing Weiner and you'd defend him to your dying day.

You clearly do not understand what atheism means.