They're all nutballs.



(Yes, the air is nice and clear up here on my high horse :thumb:)

Absolutely. My conclusion is the guy needs to just go away.
If this is the best plan his team could come up with in 10 days, it just shows how completely incompetent they are.
That is not leadership. Thats Bullship.

The money issue hasn't even started yet. Has anyone else read about the campaign finance issue?

I realized that after I posted. I'm sure it came out because of a fellow Republican's digging, but now the money is starting to flow into his campaign just as he should be shutting down, because the faithful assume its a left wing smear, of course the usual right v left propagandizing is still occurring it is just after the information has come out. Look at merc's reaction assuming innocence while the left assumes guilt and the sides switch when they get going on Clinton. Politicians are generally awful people so I assume a lot of this stuff is true, but I'd like to see ideas be the main source of discussion, since workable ideas are, so far, missing from this election cycle.

Well said Griff - I hadn't thought of that as a reason.
Gah - - - totally messed up.

Bottom line, Liberals are willing to jump on the band wagon of demonizing Cain over accusations where as they have no defense over a sitting President shooting his DNA on a young professional staffer while in the White House. An accusation is just that, often the expedient thing to do is to arbitrate, and what ever the decision is after that is what happens, you pay them off, you agree to something in private, issue over. It still does not rise to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors, as Clinton was accuse of (due to his lies on the stand), not to mention his lies to the public, "I did not have sex with that woman". You people become more laughable every day.... :lol:

ANYONE BUT OBAMA IN 2012! :lol:

yeh, well right now it looks like it sure as heck won't be Cain. The man is so incompetent that he can't even get out of his own way.

Okay, enough of my mumblemumblemumble solutions.

Here it is:

I know neither of you want it, which is why you are perfect for it.

As usual, you don't answer my questions.

As for what happened between Clinton and Lewinsky and what happened between Cain and these three women, you fail to make a distinction between consensual sex and sexual harassment. They're as different as happy-sexy-fun time and rape. Consent is crucial. It seems clear that there was consent in Clinton's case, it seems equally clear, indeed the very definition of sexual harassment, that there was NO consent in Cain's case. If you don't understand this, or don't respect this, you need to stay the fuck away from me and my family and my friends. It's not that hard to understand, but based on your post above, you don't get it.

What I find hilarious is that your "defense" of Cain is "Clinton did it!" REALLY? That's... ok with you? That Cain's no worse than Clinton? You've made your opinion of Clinton pretty clear over the years, and if this isn't damning with faint praise, I don't know what is. Hilarious.

You don't get what sexual harassment means and you excuse it because other people did something. If attitudes like your continue to represent Obama's opposition, this is gonna be easier and more embarrassing than I previously expected.

^^WHS^^

Tomorrow (Friday, the 4th) is the next big day for Herman Cain's campaign.

Supposedly, the attorneys will decide what, if anything, will be allowed for the confidentiality agreements with the Natl Restaurant Assoc and the two women accusers.

Also, Friday night is the announced campaign debut of Gloria Cain.
We hope she is not at home ironing a leopard-print dress.

Hey, at least it would be ironed.

This is mind-bending...

Politico
JONATHAN MARTIN
11/4/11
Herman Cain accuser attorney: Settlement dated 9/99, Kilgore signed

...and???

I guess when I need to explain it, it's not so weird... think 999

Oh ... I got that, I thought there was more too it.

Hmm ...

Read more:

Thats pretty weak. She wants to have her cake and eat it too? Can't have both. Oh wait, I guess she can.
I still think the damage is done, no matter what the polls say.

Can we get back to talking about his nutty policies yet?

nein nein nein!

We could discuss the upcoming campaign finance scandal.
I'm still looking for some concrete reporting though.

So how about you and Lookout running, then?

I got a past and it isn't pretty. Heck the present isn't looking so good either.

Ohhhhhh just found this from 2 days ago. lol

They're actually blaming Rahm! Wow!

You just scooped Merc with that one.

yeh - did you see the link? I fell dirty just having clicked on it.

:right:

From a friend of mine - sarcasm intended.

Bill O'Reilly interviewed all the GOP candidates last night.
As reported on CBS News, there wasn't much "news",
but at least O'Reilly did get to the bottom-tier candidates.

Somehow those remarks seem a little weird:

Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson were surprise victors ?
Translation: I had a temporary blackout back in '08

Don't confuse moderate attitude with moderate record ?
Translation: I admit, I'll say anything to during the GOP campaign.

And besides all that:

Elsewhere, Herman Cain said his wife is behind him 200 % in all of this sexual harassment business.

We may still see the leopard-print dress show up during this campaign, after all.

Can you imagine just how badly Mitt Romney feels during this GOP campaign ?

Here's a man who has committed himself to becoming President.
He's wealthy enough to pay his own campaign expenses.
He's been Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
He's experienced in campaigning, having run for the Presidency before
He's willing to say anything, at any time, to appeal to his current audience.
Yet, throughout the campaign, polling shows 75% of Republicans do not choose him.

Can you imagine Romney's humiliation over the past two days,
when his nearest opponents in this race have day's like this:

Obama's musings on a possible campaign strategy to win over immigrants.

That would be unfair. Effective, but dirty though.

Sideshow Bob 2012!

[quote=classicman;770444]


:D How true.

CNN 's article today has an interesting discussion of the upcoming GOP debate.
It's mostly about the recent "errors" and "goofs" of the candidates,
but there are some good questions...

CNN
By Peter Hamby, CNN Political Reporter
November 12, 2011

5 things to look for in GOP debate
The article concludes with discussion of the scheduling this debate
and conflicts with Saturday football: Pigskin or Politics ?

And besides all that:

????? What is the 5th question we should be looking for ?????

Is Romney the totally forgotten man ?

Are Republicans in complete denial of Romney's existence ?

What about Santorum and Bachmann ?

Was the number of questions devised by a Repubican ?
.

ANYone but Obama.

Strategy for Obama?

Both Napoleon and Sun Tzu are reported to have said something like "when the enemy are making mistakes, don't interrupt."

Mouth shut, powder dry, try to run the country.

Out of this bunch, Huntsman gets the nod over Obama, the rest are not close.

For whatever reason the most intelligent and capable man in the race just cannot seem to gain any traction with his party.
Hmmm.... perhaps as VP.

I'm still thinking the best the R's can do is a Romney/Huntsman ticket.

Romney / Huntsman does seem to be the best out of this lot.

Maybe these two are keeping their heads down, their powder dry and their mouths shut (to avoid gathering feet) for a few more mnths, while the pretenders entertain the media. Maybe we'll see them emerge more as things progress.

As of right now, I think it would fall to Romney by default.

At the turn, here comes Newt on the outside...

Newt, Mitt...what's up with the weird name thing?

Biff for President!

Now, about Barack. Oh. :bolt:

If Cain is guilty of sexual harassment, these quotes will be end his career :eek:

Christian Science Monitor
David Grant
November 14, 2011

Gloria Cain says Herman Cain 'totally respects' women

If someone changes their name to Nott Romney, they could probably get the nomination.

In the GOP foreign policy debate Sunday in South Carolina, candidates were asked
whether they believed the U.S. should waterboard terror detainees.

This question did two things totally unique to this year's debates.
It resurrected the ghost of Dick Cheney on the issue of water boarding, and
it brought emphatic, yet matching responses from President Obama and Senator McCain.

Michele Bachmann explicitly endorsed waterboarding:
Cain told the debate moderators:
Ron Paul, in contrast, upset a portion of the partisan crowd by declaring:
Huntsman, agreed, saying, Reactions from McCain and Obama were:

John McCain said:
President Obama responded: Let me just say this:
And besides all that:

Today Herman Cain showed that he is a manly man, with a link back
to Red Skelton's skits about the "Mean 'ittle Kid":

"Manly" men like more pizza toppings
.

Calling Pelosi 'Princess Nancy' really pissed me off.



Why? How? WTf is this man doing at the forefront of politics? I mean....I am assuming he isn't as thick as he appears to be (roughly the thickness of two short planks) ... because that really would be scary. But if he isn't as thick as he appears to be then he has no fucking excuse for his unreconstructed, macho, sexist, homophobic dickery.

You can't go wrong in the Republican party when insulting Nancy Pelosi.

After this weekend's 60 Minutes, hating Pelosi should be some sort of bipartisan thing.

While I still really admire Pelosi, she was a deer in the headlights in that show.

I'm shocked just shocked... that 60 Minutes is still on television.

It looks to me like Pelosi and Boehner were added to pad the guy's book with big names, when he really only found a smoking gun with the unknown guy from Alaska.

Well I'll say it, since I find it unlikely anyone else will: Cain is in the forefront at this exact moment in time because he is black. It's the same reason John McCain chose a female running mate back in 2008. Because you have to have something to counter the people who vote purely on idealism--both the racists who would vote against him no matter what, as well as the symbolists who would vote for him no matter what in order to ensure we finally got our first African-American president.

If the Republicans run a black guy, maybe they can head off at the pass all the people who would vote for the black guy over the white guy no matter what. If the Republicans run a black guy, then the marginally racist members of the base can make the effort to vote for him to prove that 'some of their best friends (candidates) are black.' The best way for everyone to show that race has nothing to do with anything, is to run a candidate of a matching race. If Hilary Clinton had won the democratic primary and then the presidency, then Bachmann or Palin or someone else with a uterus would be polling with undeservedly high numbers right now instead.

I can has explanation plz?

60 Minutes TV show had a segment on how members of congress are exempt from "insider information trading laws" because they are privy to information about upcoming Bills in committees, etc.

The reporter started with Pelosi in what looked like a large press conference, asking if she thought it was ethical for the Speaker to invest in stocks based on such insider information.

Pelosi looked (to me) as though she was caught completely unawares, and tried a couple of times to divert the question.
Finally, she denied she or her husband made such investments.
This was my "deer in the headlights"

Next, the reporter confronted Boehner with the same question, and Boehner gave a similar denial.

Then the reporter talked about several other Congressmen (heads of committees, etc) doing the same thing.

Never admired her, this just gave me more reason to dislike her ... and the rest of them all the more.

Thanks LL.

So, she poorly handled a loaded question, but there's no evidence (yet) that she was doing insider trading, is that it?

Oh I wasn't objecting to him hating Pelosi. But referring to her as 'Princess' in that context was dodgy as fuck. particularly coming from a man who is desparately trying to make people think he has respect for women.

The equivalent, in my view would be if one of the Democrats referred to Cain as Uncle Tom.



@ Clod: thanks for the explanation. When you spell it out like that it makes more sense.

Well, you know how accurately you can read someone's facial expressions ?
She looked guilty as all h;;;. :rolleyes:
Boehner had one of Sandy's painted stone faces.

I would say the reporter was on to something that probably involves all of Congress.
But then, sometimes I'm just can't help being cynical.

Yeah, I'm sure it's a problem for all of Congress. Fuckers are getting rich playing games. Pelosi is one of the worst examples, to sum up:

Through her husband, in 2008, Pelosi bought at least $1.3M, maybe a much greater amount, of Visa stock.

Some of it was bought during Visa's IPO, and it's not clear whether this was an invite-only party, or an excellent investment decision on behalf of Mr. Pelosi.

Shortly thereafter, the legislation that led to the BoA $5 surcharge was debated and passed through committee. (Here's our thread discussing it.) We found that it had a $19B impact on banks in 2009 (a much greater amount in 2008) but apparently it would have a similar impact on Visa.

It failed to come up for a vote in the House. Pelosi is roughly the person who decides which bills will go to a vote.

A year later in 2009, similar legislation was introduced, passed committee again, gained additional support, and again failed to come up for a vote.

Finally in 2010 it gained more support and was passed.

In her defense, Pelosi offers that a Cardholders Bill of Rights passed in 2009 and the card companies didn't like it. But that didn't hurt Visa as much as the interchange fees matter, and in the meantime, the IPO shares doubled in price.

Hastert's example is also particularly obvious. He bought a bunch of worthless land. Then he got earmarked money to build a highway next to it. Then he sold the land for $2M.

Can it be proven that they intended to make money from these deals, probably not. They merely did. But since we are stuck in the false dichotomy of left-right politics, it can all be written off as partisan attack, and there will always be people to defend them.