Following the John Edwards philosophy of if you're going to do bad things, do it big time and in ways that can't possibly be hidden, Herman Cain has an IRS violation scandal and a sexual harassment scandal now too. There are lots of links for these stories out there, here are just a couple.
Yeah, he's done. If the illegal campaign funds and IRS issues weren't enough, Cain and his campaign admit there was a sexual harassment settlement after first denying it.
This is the funniest admission, where instead of saying, "yes there was a settlement" he says, "outside of the restaurant association, no". The man is a clown. He and Rick Perry would make a great slapstick team.
I think the important thing to figure out is:
Was the Wshington Post waiting on this until he became popular, were they tipped off by the Obama election campaign, or the Perry campaign? The allegations are not exactly new.
BrassScorpion wrote:Funny, I can't see how that's important at all. Justice delayed is justice denied, but better late than never.
Its incredibly important. I want to know who orderred the hit. this one is worthy of the Clinton kill team, or a good Chicago mobster... Of course Governor Blowdry is practised in this art as well, but it reaks of lefty paper October surprise. I think we need to verify the whereabouts of Dan Rather pronto.
Hm, one source is from a blatently political website that reports on rumors as if they're facts and tries to spin a story out of whole cloth and the other is from Mother Jones.
I'm sure Bill O'Reilly would love to have Cain on his show to defend himself. Sexual harassment is an area he himself is all too familiar with and he can advise Cain on how to buy his way out of it the same way he did.
I guess Brassscoprion doesn't believe in presumption of guilt. Are you always this way or only just with certain groups?
EDIT: Here's where it pays to follow the Frazzled mantra. Trust no one. Believe nothing. (ie if you presume everyone's guilty you're rarely wrong, and when you are its a pleasant surprise).
Herman Cain said Monday he was “falsely accused” of sexual harassment while he was CEO of the National Restaurant Association and had no knowledge of any settlements paid to his accusers.
“It is totally baseless and totally false,” Cain said in a Fox News interview. “Never have I ever committed any kind of sexual harassment.”
He added: “If the restaurant association did a settlement, I wasn’t even aware of it and I hope it wasn’t for much. If there was a settlement, it was handled by some of the other officers at the restaurant association.”
Cain’s response to POLITICO’s report that at least two women had accused him of inappropriate behavior during his NRA tenure came after the GOP presidential candidate’s campaign issued a lengthy statement Sunday night attacking – but not directly denying — the revelations.
And in a phone interview with Fox News Sunday evening, Cain spokesman J.D. Gordon repeatedly evaded questions about whether the trade group made payments to two female employees who expressed discomfort with Cain’s actions.
“All I’m telling you right now is, this is something the establishment is trying to attack Mr. Cain on,” Gordon said. Pressed by host Geraldo Rivera as to whether there had been any cash settlements, Gordon said: “You’d have to get that from the National Restaurant Association.”
Gordon told the Associated Press Sunday evening that the campaign was flat-out denying POLITICO’s story.
Earlier Sunday, Cain repeatedly declined to answer several direct questions from POLITICO about the allegations, and the campaign’s first statement on the story did not include a denial.
“Fearing the message of Herman Cain who is shaking up the political landscape in Washington, Inside the Beltway media have begun to launch unsubstantiated personal attacks on Cain,” Cain’s campaign said in a statement. “Dredging up thinly sourced allegations stemming from Mr. Cain’s tenure as the Chief Executive Officer at the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, political trade press are now casting aspersions on his character and spreading rumors that never stood up to the facts.”
-- Herman Cain campaign spokesman J.D. Gordon on allegations of payments to two former female subordinates whom Politico reports made claims that Cain sexually harassed them.
Maybe if Herman Cain’s campaign manager had spent less of the past two weeks on self-promotional smoke breaks, the GOP’s putative presidential frontrunner would be having a better Monday.
Politico says that in the less than three years Cain led the National Restaurant Association, the trade group paid two female accusers more than $10,000 each to leave the organization and to be silent on the subject.
Despite having known that the story was in the pipeline for weeks, the Cain team and the candidate seemed utterly unprepared for the onslaught that has predictably followed. They have issued evasive denials and immediately gone to political DEFCON 1 by invoking the fricasseeing of Clarence Thomas, also a conservative black man from Georgia, in 1991 for allegations of bawdy talk at his office.
“Sadly, we’ve seen this movie played out before -- a prominent conservative targeted by liberals simply because they disagree with his politics,” said spokesman J.D. Gordon (who is the campaign’s “vice president for communications” as well as a senior foreign-policy adviser).
While conservatives still bristle at having Thomas hectored by none other than Sen. Ted Kennedy for lasciviousness, jumping right to the infamous “high-tech lynching” doesn’t leave Cain a lot of running room. Remember that Justice Thomas’ ordeal was hardly a public relations success, even if he survived to go on and become a distinguished jurist.
Power Play will stipulate that these kinds of payouts are hardly rare in litigation-averse corporate America and that what Bill Clinton called “the politics of personal destruction” tends to keep competent and qualified people out of public life. Many Republicans still lament that two potential candidates this cycle, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, opted against runs because they did not want themselves and their families to have to endure the dumpster diving that is so much a part of American political life today.
So how could Cain and his team not have been prepared for this? If there was a payout to these women, which the campaign seems to allow is possible, then how was there no plan in place for this contingency? Surely they long knew that some rival campaign would unearth these allegations and that this would be tremendously dangerous for a candidate who is an ordained minister.
Allegations of physical sexual misconduct would be ruinous for Cain or any candidate on the Republican side, but even bawdy talk of the kind Thomas was accused of would badly undercut Baptist preacher Cain’s image. While some GOP primary voters may celebrate Cain’s lack of political correctness when talking about high-voltage border security or the funny names of America’s allies in Central Asia, they wouldn’t be so forgiving of raunchy language directed at women.
But as was the case with Cain’s bewildering responses on federal abortion policy and whether to negotiate with terrorists, neither Cain nor his nascent team seemed to be ready for a predictable challenge.
And so the question of the day: Where is Gloria Cain?
The candidate’s wife has stayed home in Georgia and is unknown to her husband’s fans. If she suddenly emerges now, it would have a Spitzerish, guilty-seeming quality. But if she doesn’t emerge soon, it will only deepen concerns about her husband’s conduct.
That’s why other campaigns are sure to introduce spouses to voters early and often. Not only can it be a big plus in humanizing candidates, as both Anita Perry and Ann Romney have done for their husbands, it also provides a person to vouch for the good character of the potential nominee. Hillary Clinton perfected the modern version of the political spouse as scandal-soaker-upper, but even those candidates who do not need the historic levels of help that her oft-erring husband did need a little assistance from time to time.
Which brings us back to Cain campaign manager Mark Block. Block has been busy calling attention to himself and his nicotine cravings, hardly wise if you have played the political game as close to the edge as Block did in his Wisconsin career.
Now, even as Team Cain tries to handle the sexier story of harassment hush money, the more boring claim bubbles up that Block violated federal campaign finance laws by having a company he established in Wisconsin improperly finance Cain’s campaign launch. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports that the company seems to have existed almost solely for the provision of funds to the Cain campaign. What we don’t know is what matters most: Where did the money come from?
Block provoked this story with his smoke signals. By releasing the bizarre smoking video, Block begged the question “Who is this guy?” That prompted unhappy answers about questionable campaign practices and deepened reporters’ curiosity about this colorful character.
A laughing Block asked the Associated Press last week: "Can you imagine Karl Rove doing what I did with that cigarette?" No. And now you see why. Rather than talking about himself, Block should have been talking to his boss about getting ahead of the harassment story by introducing Mrs. Cain ahead of time.
When Mick Huckabee had his moment in 2008, he was ready for the spotlight after surviving and thriving in the ongoing knife fight that is Arkansas politics. He and his family-run campaign managed to hold their own against the well-funded, professional teams put in the field by John McCain and Romney. It was good enough to put Huckabee in contention for the nomination, but ultimately not enough.
The Romney organization this time around is even sharper and clearly a couple of steps ahead of McCain’s 2008 effort. It looks increasingly unlikely that Cain will be able to do even as well as his fellow Baptist preacher did four years ago. He may be as good as Huckabee on the stump, but he lacks Huckabee’s command of the issues and, more importantly, he lacks a strategist as able as Sarah Huckabee.
Melissia wrote:I'm not sure brass scorpion really wants to participate in conversations so much as he wants to spam us with nonsensical images, videos, and links...
That said, you don't need these allegations to make Cain look bad. Just the 9-9-9 tax plan alone makes him look bad.
Actually it doesn't. With a few moinor tweaks, its a succinct workable plan. 9-0-9 is getting closer to an ideal.
Melissia wrote:I'm not sure brass scorpion really wants to participate in conversations so much as he wants to spam us with nonsensical images, videos, and links...
That said, you don't need these allegations to make Cain look bad. Just the 9-9-9 tax plan alone makes him look bad.
Actually it doesn't. With a few moinor tweaks, its a succinct workable plan. 9-0-9 is getting closer to an ideal.
Mark Block is the man with the cigarette in that Herman Cain ad. He also ran the Wisconsin arm of the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity. According to what look like internal records published by Daniel Bice at the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Mr. Block gave Mr. Cain an early push:
Balance sheets showed Wisconsin Prosperity Network was more than $62,000 in the hole by early February; Prosperity USA was in even worse shape, with its liabilities exceeding its assets by $110,000.
In fact, the records indicate Prosperity USA's biggest asset was nearly $40,000 that it was owed by "FOH," a reference to Friends of Herman Cain, the name of Cain's presidential operation.
A more detailed checking account says the Cain campaign owed nearly $15,000 for an "Atlanta invoice," about $17,000 for chartered flight service and $5,000 for travel and meetings in Iowa, Las Vegas, Houston, Dallas and Louisiana. The document says the Cain campaign had been billed $3,700 for iPads purchased on Jan. 4.
The Bice report suggests that the way the money went to support Mr. Cain could run afoul of campaign finance and/or tax law -- the groups Mr. Block founded were nonprofits that aren't allowed direct political involvement. Since the laws on campaign finance are not all that fiercely enforced, the story may say at least as much about the Cain campaign's roots with Americans for Prosperity.
Melissia wrote:I'm not sure brass scorpion really wants to participate in conversations so much as he wants to spam us with nonsensical images, videos, and links...
That said, you don't need these allegations to make Cain look bad. Just the 9-9-9 tax plan alone makes him look bad.
Actually it doesn't. With a few moinor tweaks, its a succinct workable plan. 9-0-9 is getting closer to an ideal.
No flat tax is an ideal.
Ever.
Whether I agree or disagree, thats opinion.
Frazzled's plan is 5 - 20 - 30 -50 no deductions.
0-50,000
51,000-100,000
101,000-250,000
over
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Denying he sexually harassed anyone, Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said Monday he was falsely accused in the 1990s while he was head of the National Restaurant Association, and he branded revelation of the allegations a "witch hunt."
The former pizza company executive was responding to a Politico report that said the trade group gave financial settlements to at least two female employees who had accused Cain of inappropriate sexual behavior. He said he had no knowledge of whether the association provided any such settlements, and he declined to address specifics of the accusations or the resolution.
"There's nothing else there to dig up," he declared at the National Press Club. "We have no idea the source of this witch hunt, which is really what it is."
He added, "This bulls-eye on my back has gotten bigger."
Cain said an investigation into accusations of impropriety while he was the head of the restaurant group determined they were baseless.
"I've never sexually harassed anyone," he told Fox News.
Earlier in the day, Cain acknowledged, "I do have a sense of humor and some people have a problem with that." And by the afternoon, he was joking: "As a result of today's big news story, I really know what it feels like to be No. 1."
The trade association refused to comment on the allegations.
"The incidents in question relate to personnel matters that allegedly took place nearly fifteen years ago. Consistent with our longstanding policy, we don't comment on personnel issues relating to current or former employees," National Restaurant Association spokeswoman Sue Hensley said in a statement.
Cain - a self-styled outsider relatively new to the national spotlight - is facing a new level of scrutiny after a burst of momentum in the race for the GOP presidential nomination.
He's been at or near the top of national surveys and polls in early presidential nominating states, competitive with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, long considered the Republican to beat. Cain has been pointing to his long record in business to argue that he has the credentials to be president during a time of economic strife.
So far, Cain has seemed to weather a series of stumbles; the former radio talk show host had to clarify recent statements on abortion, the treatment of terrorism suspects and the placing of an electrified fence along the U.S.-Mexico border. He's also shrugged off questions that have started to surface about his management style, including criticisms about a lackluster approach to his own presidential campaign. He lags his top competitors in organization and fundraising.
The new allegations could hurt Cain's efforts to reassure the Republican establishment that someone with so little political experience - and who hasn't been fully vetted on a national stage - is prepared to go up against President Barack Obama next fall.
But there were signs that conservatives were rallying behind him, attacking the report as inaccurate and perhaps racially motivated.
The head of the conservative Media Research Center, Brent Bozell, called the Politico story a "High-tech lynching of Herman Cain." That was a reference to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' response to a former worker's allegations during his confirmation hearing.
"In the eyes of the liberal media, Herman Cain is just another uppity black American who has had the audacity to leave the liberal plantation," Bozell wrote on the conservative website Newsbusters.org.
The allegations came to light Sunday night when Politico reported that at least two women who complained about sexually inappropriate behavior while working for Cain had signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them five-figure financial payouts to leave the association and barred them from discussing their departures. Neither woman was identified.
The report was based on anonymous sources and, in one case, what the publication said was a review of documentation that described the allegations and the resolution. Politico said spokesman J.D. Gordon told their publication that Cain himself had indicated to campaign officials that he was "vaguely familiar" with the charges and that the restaurant association's general counsel had resolved the matter.
But Cain, himself, refused to comment to Politico when asked specifically about one of the woman's claims. And when asked if he had ever been accused of harassment by a woman, the publication said Cain responded by asking the reporter, "Have you ever been accused of sexual harassment?"
In a statement late Sunday to The Associated Press, Gordon told the AP that the Politico report was not true - and blamed the media.
"Inside-the-Beltway media have begun to launch unsubstantiated personal attacks on Cain," Gordon said in a written statement. "Dredging up thinly sourced allegations stemming from Mr. Cain's tenure as the chief executive officer at the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, political trade press are now casting aspersions on his character and spreading rumors that never stood up to the facts."
Despite the controversy, Cain pressed ahead with his full slate of campaign appearances in Washington on Monday.
At a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, he refused to answer questions about the allegations but said he would further discuss them later in the day while appearing at the National Press Club.
Still, as he was leaving the stage, he stopped, turned to the crowd and talked about his sense of humor without providing any context. He said his staff tells him to be himself - or "Let Herman be Herman."
He added: "Herman is going to stay Herman."
An hour later, he was on Fox News.
"If more allegations come, I assure you, people will simply make them up," Cain said. Besides his job as CEO of Godfather's Pizza, he worked at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
"What you can expect from my campaign is for me to stay on message, for us to continue to do the things and execute our strategy in order to win the nomination," Cain said.
Still, he acknowledged that the controversy could become a significant political problem.
"Obviously, some people are going to be turned off by this cloud that someone wanted to put over my campaign," he said. "But a lot of people aren't going to be turned off. We'll just have to wait and see what happens."
Two out of three Americans surveyed tell the Hill the middle class is shrinking, and they've got some ideas about what's gone wrong:
Close to 7 in 10 said the income tax system is either somewhat or very unfair — a finding that was supported among most ideological groups and income levels.
But voters are also far from convinced that a flat tax — like the one Texas Gov. RickPerry (R) proposed last week — was the solution to that problem.
A clear majority — 58 percent — said they favored a graduated income tax system, with only 35 percent backing the sort of flat tax that magazine publisher Steve Forbes pushed for during his 1996 presidential campaign.
But here's the disjunct: Voters appear to be split almost exactly between the two parties when it comes to taxes. Democrats are pushing higher taxes for the rich and breaks for everyone else. Republicans are pushing a regressive flat tax, tax breaks for the wealthy and an end to tax breaks for working families. The choice is stark, but somehow it's not clear.
Try "Concerned Women for America", also known as "Ladies Against Women". An entire group of women following a misogyinstic viewpoint under the guise of trying to enforce Christian family values.
"If you're a poor woman you should work, you lazy slob, stop leeching off welfare!"
"If you're middle class, you should keep your damn ass in the kitchen, stop working to support your family!"
"If you're rich, it's okay to be a trophy wife who married for money into a loveless relationship!"
I think keeping this thread open for BrassScorpion to post his Rachel Maddow conspiracy stories/fanfic is a good idea. That way he doesn't pollute the rest of OT with his fanciful stories and conjecture.
Try "Concerned Women for America", also known as "Ladies Against Women". An entire group of women following a misogyinstic viewpoint under the guise of trying to enforce Christian family values.
"If you're a poor woman you should work, you lazy slob, stop leeching off welfare!"
"If you're middle class, you should keep your damn ass in the kitchen, stop working to support your family!"
"If you're rich, it's okay to be a trophy wife who married for money into a loveless relationship!"
Hmmm, what if number 2 reverts to number 1?
Then the woman has to work again to be in the middle class.
Then back to number 1
an ENDLESS CYCLE!
As for number 3.... no real comment unless I want to offend someone.
But, a woman who can cook is sexier than a woman who cannot.
biccat wrote:I think keeping this thread open for BrassScorpion to post his Rachel Maddow conspiracy stories/fanfic is a good idea. That way he doesn't pollute the rest of OT with his fanciful stories and conjecture.
You have a good point.
I still like his ads. They are just this side of crazy.
Report: Cain Campaign May Have Gotten Illegal Boost From Aides' Firm
This is shaping up to be a really blue Monday for Herman Cain and a very busy Halloween for political reporters.
Not only is there the report of alleged sexual harassment during his time at the National Restaurant Association. Now there's a report that his campaign may have received early help from a company run by his campaign aides, a situation which legal experts say could have violated federal election and tax laws.
The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports:
Herman Cain's two top campaign aides ran a private Wisconsin-based corporation that helped the GOP presidential candidate get his fledgling campaign off the ground by originally footing the bill for tens of thousands of dollars in expenses for such items as iPads, chartered flights and travel to Iowa and Las Vegas - something that might breach federal tax and campaign law, according to sources and documents.
Internal financial records obtained by No Quarter show that Prosperity USA said it was owed about $40,000 by the Cain campaign for a variety of items in February and March. Cain began taking donations for his presidential bid on Jan. 1.
Prosperity USA was owned and run by Wisconsin political operatives Mark Block and Linda Hansen, Cain's current chief of staff and deputy chief of staff, respectively.
That's the same Block, of course, who took a drag off a cigarette in that weird Cain campaign ad that was such a hot topic last week.
And here's a passage from the story that, apropos of the day, may be the scariest for Cain and his aides:
Election law experts say the transactions raise a host of questions for the private organization, which billed itself as a tax-exempt nonprofit, and the Cain team.
"If the records accurately reflect what occurred, this is way out of bounds," said a Washington, D.C.-based election lawyer who advises many Republican candidates and conservative groups on campaign issues. The lawyer asked not to be identified because of those affiliations.
Michael Maistelman, a Wisconsin campaign attorney, agreed.
"The number of questionable and possibly illegal transactions conducted on behalf of Herman Cain is staggering," said Maistelman, a Democrat who has represented politicians from both parties on campaign issues.
This type of story by itself would keep any presidential campaign busy on a normal day. But, of course, Cain is also dealing with the fallout from allegations that at least two women accused him of sexual harassment in the 1990s when he ran the National Restaurant Association during their time there. According to Politico, the women received were paid before they left and signed pacts committing them to silence on the matter.
Cain appeared at the American Enterprise Institute Monday morning for a previously scheduled event to talk about his 9-9-9 tax plan.
Although reporters were told the only questions he would entertain after a question and answer session with the moderator would be fiscal, ABC News' Jon Karl asked Cain about the harassment charges.
Cain declined to answer, saying he was abiding by his hosts' groundrules. He promised he would field questions at a later appearance at the National Press Club.
Block had prior campaign-law troubles. He was banned for several years from involvement in campaigns after Wisconsin election officials accused him of illegally coordinating the judicial candidate's campaign he was running with outside groups. Block settled without admitting guilt.
Block has been associated with the political network created by the Koch Brothers as well. He headed Wisconsin's branch of Americans for Prosperity, the group underwritten by the Kochs.
Herman Cain says sexual harassment claims 'baseless'
Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain has strongly denied allegations of sexual harassment against him dating from the 1990s.
"Never have I committed any sort of sexual harassment," he told Fox News.
Politico reported that two female employees complained of sexually suggestive behaviour from Mr Cain when he led a restaurant lobby group.
It said the National Restaurant Association paid the women to leave the group and not speak on the allegations.
Mr Cain told Fox News: "I've never sexually harassed anyone."
"And yes, I was falsely accused while I was at the National Restaurant Association, and I say falsely because it turned out after the investigation to be baseless."
He said he had no idea whether the trade association provided financial settlements to the women who complained.
"If there was a settlement, it was handled by some of the other officers at the restaurant association," he said.
'Witch hunt'
The National Restaurant Association said it did not comment on personnel matters.
Mr Cain kept to his campaign schedule on Monday.
He did not discuss the issue when addressing the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC about tax reform.
But later in the day, he told the National Press Club in the city the allegations were "totally false" and a "witch hunt".
His campaign also denied the reports.
"Let me tell you that Herman Cain has never sexually harassed anybody, period. End of story," Mr Cain's chief of staff, Mark Block, told MSNBC on Monday morning.
Mr Block said top officials at the National Restaurant Association thought Mr Cain was "a man of total integrity".
A statement on Sunday attacked the story.
"Dredging up thinly sourced allegations stemming from Mr Cain's tenure as the chief executive officer at the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, political trade press are now casting aspersions on his character and spreading rumours that never stood up to the facts," spokesman JD Gordon said.
The Cain campaign also responded on Twitter. "From Team HC: Sadly we've seen this movie played out before. Mr. Cain and all Americans deserve better," @THEHermanCain tweeted.
'Sexually suggestive'
Mr Cain, who was CEO of Godfather's Pizza before heading the restaurant lobby group, has taken a lead in opinion polls of Republican voters in recent weeks, despite never having held public office.
Politico said it had confirmed the identities of two former female employees of the National Restaurant Association who made sexual harassment complaints to colleagues and association officials about Mr Cain, but was not publishing their names out of concerns for their privacy.
The website said the allegations included conversations "filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature" at association events.
Mr Cain also allegedly gave "descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual, but that made women who experienced them or witnessed them uncomfortable".
Politico said its report was based on multiple sources and documentation, including the recollections of close associates of the two women.
When asked by Politico on Sunday about the allegations, Mr Cain said he has "had thousands of people working for me" at different businesses over the years and could not comment "until I see some facts or some concrete evidence".
A poll on Saturday placed Mr Cain ahead of his main rival, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, in Iowa, which holds the first of a series of state-by-state contests to choose the Republican candidate.
The hopefuls are vying to become the party's nominee to challenge President Barack Obama for the White House in November 2012.
biccat wrote:I think keeping this thread open for BrassScorpion to post his Rachel Maddow conspiracy stories/fanfic is a good idea. That way he doesn't pollute the rest of OT with his fanciful stories and conjecture.
So, what you're saying is that you want someone else to give you a similar thread?
biccat wrote:I think keeping this thread open for BrassScorpion to post his Rachel Maddow conspiracy stories/fanfic is a good idea. That way he doesn't pollute the rest of OT with his fanciful stories and conjecture.
So, what you're saying is that you want someone else to give you a similar thread?
I wasn't aware that I've ever endorsed any of Rachel Maddow's conspiracy theories. Although I'm sure you are able to provide links.
Piston Honda wrote:But, a woman who can cook is sexier than a woman who cannot.
Same goes for a man really.
A man who can cook you wonderful meals? [City name]'s most eligible bachelor material here.
Bull, I can cook wonderful meals and I'm as single as hell.
Back to the topic of people getting money from the government after taxes;
The poor= can't afford anything so they get money back for being poor.
The rich= get money back for owning homes and businesses which supply the economy with homes for the poor and jobs for others.
get money back for donating to charities that go out to help the poor and destitute in this country and in other countries.
Like it or not the rich get tax deductions for things that ultimately help the poor while the poor get tax deductions for being poor, something's gotta give here and I say that a flat tax is awesome. Oh and Melissia here's how the 9-0-9 plan works; 9% business investment(which the poor don't have because they don't own businesses), 0% income tax(which the poor already have in most cases), and 9% federal sales tax(oh my god poor people may actually have to put some money into the economy that is busy ruining itself to help them, but its only on goods they buy and there will probably be exceptions on what gets taxed or not).
Geeze, if someone pays nothing in taxes and then has to pay nine dollars its a 900% tax increase.
Raising Cain: When is a Scoop Ready to be Published?
Politico’s story on possible sexual harassment by Herman Cain may be the biggest investigative scoop of the campaign season. But it would be hard to deduce that from the facts as published.
The story lacks the key details needed to judge whether the allegations amount to fatal character flaw in a candidate suddenly running near the top of the polls. For example, the story quotes unnamed sources as saying the National Restaurant Association paid two “five figure settlements” to deal with charges of harassment by Cain, who was president and CEO of the trade group from 1996 to 1999.
Were they $99,999 each? (To use some of Cain’s favorite numbers) Or a buck above $9,999?
The former would suggest, but not prove, that something seriously untoward had occurred. The latter sounds like what lawyers term nuisance settlements – the money corporations routinely shell out to make frivolous claims go away.
After providing equivocal denials to Politico, Cain came out swinging today. "In all of my 40 years of business experience,’’ Cain told an audience at the National Press Club in Washington, “ I have never sexually harassed anyone.
“While at the restaurant association,’’ Cain said, “ I was accused of sexual harassment. Falsely accused, I might add."
It is clear from the story Politico posted Sunday evening that reporters made extensive efforts to figure out what happened. But much of what appeared came from anonymous sources whose knowledge appeared to be second-hand or unspecific.
Politico described the incidents involved “conversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature” that took place at conferences or other Restaurant Association events. One exchange, an unnamed source said, involved an invitation by Cain to an employee to meet him in his hotel suite at an event. There were also “physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship.’’
Obviously, this description leaves open a myriad of possibilities, from the boorish to the legally actionable. Certainly, it prompts readers to scratch their heads as they try to remember what in the late 1990’s constituted a physical gesture that was not overtly sexual but discomfiting. (I checked. The Macarena came out in the mid-1990s.) Suggestions from a boss to “meet in my suite” are equally ambiguous. Did Cain have a sheaf of strategy papers on the desk or a CD player with a Michael Bolton track cued up?
Therein is the problem with this story. If the facts as published were part of a memo to Politico’s editors they would amount to a first-rate tip on a story. If Cain turns out to be a serial harasser, it will surely tarnish his image as the 2012 campaign’s most likeable fresh face.
Politico says it e-mailed the campaign for a response to the allegations on Oct. 20 and the answers quoted in Sunday’s story from both Cain and his spokesman are less than complete. But the onus remains on news organization to nail down their stories.
These would include:
What, exactly, was said or done by Cain?
How much money was paid to each of the women?
If the story reached the board of the association, as Politico alleges, why do the chairman, vice chairman and immediate past chairman of the board all say they’ve never heard of it.
There’s no doubt that sexual harassment is a potent charge. It has brought down CEOs, Congressmen, Senators and very nearly pushed Bill Clinton out of the presidency. But in this case, it remains unclear whether this was merely a great tip or an actual bombshell. I respect Politico’s decision to keep the names of the women out of this (though they will surely emerge). Yet, the basic details of this “harassment’’ are essential so readers can judge its significance.
I really don't think Cain is going to crash and burn based on just this, but to be honest I'm more concerned with the supposed IRS scandal than him touching a woman seeing as though he is going to be charged with running the economy should he get elected.
BrassScorpion wrote:Funny, I can't see how that's important at all. Justice delayed is justice denied, but better late than never.
Its incredibly important. I want to know who orderred the hit. this one is worthy of the Clinton kill team, or a good Chicago mobster... Of course Governor Blowdry is practised in this art as well, but it reaks of lefty paper October surprise. I think we need to verify the whereabouts of Dan Rather pronto.
Late to this particular party, but here I go:
I don't think that this has been leaked by the POTUS or anybody on the Democratic side. If you are sitting on this info, the best bet would be to let the primary go ahead, and if he wins use it in the general election.
If it was leaked by a political enemy, then probably someone on the Republican side at this stage in the game.
Of course it might just have been "leaked" by the news themselves. Or maybe just by the women themselves if he is indeed guilty of this. If they pay you off to save the job of some perv with the restaurant association, then they might take the money. But then seeing the same guy having the potential to become POTUS might bring them out of the woods. Might not even be the women involved, could have been someone who knows the women and who wanted his/her own 5 minutes of fame. Sort of like the lady who taped all her conversations with Monica in the Clinton days.
biccat wrote:I think keeping this thread open for BrassScorpion to post his Rachel Maddow conspiracy stories/fanfic is a good idea. That way he doesn't pollute the rest of OT with his fanciful stories and conjecture.
You have a good point.
I still like his ads. They are just this side of crazy.
If we're lucky this threads big enough to cage all of you.
Frazzled wrote:Actually it doesn't. With a few moinor tweaks, its a succinct workable plan. 9-0-9 is getting closer to an ideal.
When you don't have hard figures for how much revenue a system will generate, you don't have a plan, you have a campaign slogan. That people continue to talk about 999 as if it were some researched, fully realised tax plan and not just three numbers in a row demonstrates how content free US politics is getting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Whether I agree or disagree, thats opinion.
Frazzled's plan is 5 - 20 - 30 -50 no deductions.
0-50,000
51,000-100,000
101,000-250,000
over
That's more or less as fully realised as Cain's plan.
In other news, here's the breakdown for Australia's tax rates;
Up to $6000 - 0%
6,001 to 37,000 - 12.6%
37,001 to 80,000 - 21.9%
80,001 to 180,000 - 30.3%
180,001 - 45%
There are a small number of deductions and a fair number of direct handouts for having kids and the like, but nothing like the craziness you guys have (tax deductions for interest on the family home?!) Still, not so far from your ideal, is it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chowderhead wrote:Who would win in a conspiracy theory fight: Ann Coulter or Rachel Maddow?
Discuss.
Maddow's voice makes me want to punch orphans, but still, are we really going to pretend that Maddow and Coulter have the same level of journalistic quality?
I mean, fething seriously.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:They misspelled "rape."
Presumably an editing mistake. I will take the time to email the publication.
You realise that reality matters, or that at least it should, don't you?
Yeah, he's done. If the illegal campaign funds and IRS issues weren't enough, Cain and his campaign admit there was a sexual harassment settlement after first denying it.
This is the funniest admission, where instead of saying, "yes there was a settlement" he says, "outside of the restaurant association, no". The man is a clown. He and Rick Perry would make a great slapstick team.
sebster wrote:There are a small number of deductions and a fair number of direct handouts for having kids and the like, but nothing like the craziness you guys have (tax deductions for interest on the family home?!)
I fail to see how you can consider yourself to have a serious financial education and not understand the concept of interest deduction. Therefore, I can only conclude that you're pretending not to understand the concept to try to score some political nationalistic point.
sebster wrote:Maddow's voice makes me want to punch orphans, but still, are we really going to pretend that Maddow and Coulter have the same level of journalistic quality?
I mean, fething seriously.
Sebster has a good point here. Referring to any of the current crop of MSNBC hacks as "journalists" is bordering on the absurd.
sebster wrote:
biccat wrote:They misspelled "rape."
Presumably an editing mistake. I will take the time to email the publication.
You realise that reality matters, or that at least it should, don't you?
I suppose you're right. I don't expect them to make the correction that Mr. Clinton won a presidential election with a rape allegation hanging over his head. A man can dream tho.
biccat wrote:I fail to see how you can consider yourself to have a serious financial education and not understand the concept of interest deduction. Therefore, I can only conclude that you're pretending not to understand the concept to try to score some political nationalistic point.
I have no idea how you got "I don't understand how that works" from what I wrote, when the clear and obvious meaning was "I have no idea why anyone would put such a silly piece of tax code into place".
Every country has interest deductions. You cannot have a construction industry without a piece of code that says "you get to claim a deduction for any interest expense incurred in the construction of an income producing asset".
That is wholly different to having a deduction for something that is purely for private consumption. Interest paid on the house loan is no different to interest paid on the car loan, or the television purchased on hire purchase. Giving people money back for spending on private consumption is moon logic.
Sebster has a good point here. Referring to any of the current crop of MSNBC hacks as "journalists" is bordering on the absurd.
Yes, in a world where scoring cheap points for your own side is more important than journalistic quality, that kind of comment is totally important and completely relevant.
Meanwhile, over here where there's more important things than 'teehee I made a cheap shot at the other side' it's really important to recognise the difference between a political argument, while certainly targeted against one side, but built on facts and analysis and mean spirited gossip.
I suppose you're right. I don't expect them to make the correction that Mr. Clinton won a presidential election with a rape allegation hanging over his head. A man can dream tho.
Uh huh. So now it's gone from rape, to rape allegation, and still nothing to substantiate how the rape that became a rape allegation almost pushed Clinton out of the presidency.
Maybe just stop with the cheap little digs. It's just crap politics.
biccat wrote:
I suppose you're right. I don't expect them to make the correction that Mr. Clinton won a presidential election with a rape allegation hanging over his head. A man can dream tho.
He wasn't accused of rape until 1998. Either you are mixing your dates, or you're deliberately distorting the charge for the purposes of scoring political points.
Frazzled wrote:I think the important thing to figure out is:
Was the Wshington Post waiting on this until he became popular, were they tipped off by the Obama election campaign, or the Perry campaign? The allegations are not exactly new.
1.) It's interesting to note that both Biicat and Frazzled immediately focused not on Cain's problems or his perfidy, but who reported it. Apparently the facts are substantially less important then what team logo the messenger is wearing. That's the important thing.
2.) I don't feel it likely this would have come from Obama's camp. Obama vs Cain matchups show Obama either solidly winning to shellacking Cain, depending who you ask. It's in Obama's interest to keep Cain in the running for as long as humanly possible, damaging all the other opponents but most especially Romney. I think Frazzled has it right when he thinks it was Perry's camp, since he's having a pretty tough time right now.
3.) None of this is really going to hurt him, anyway. The tax stuff is small potatoes, and the sexual harassment stuff doesn't have much in the way of teeth. The settlements surely include NDA's so the truth will never be known. Other politicians have survived way worse.
Ouze wrote:1.) It's interesting to note that both Biicat and Frazzled immediately focused not on Cain's problems or his perfidy, but who reported it. Apparently the facts are substantially less important then what team logo the messenger is wearing. That's the important thing.
2.) I don't feel it likely this would have come from Obama's camp. Obama vs Cain matchups show Obama either solidly winning to shellacking Cain, depending who you ask. It's in Obama's interest to keep Cain in the running for as long as humanly possible, damaging all the other opponents but most especially Romney. I think Frazzled has it right when he thinks it was Perry's camp, since he's having a pretty tough time right now.
3.) None of this is really going to hurt him, anyway. The tax stuff is small potatoes, and the sexual harassment stuff doesn't have much in the way of teeth. The settlements surely include NDA's so the truth will never be known. Other politicians have survived way worse.
Blah Blah Blah old sexual harassment case blah blah blah. In the end nobody cares and few will remember because nothing was proven in a court. In the end it will matter less than the pubic hair on a coke can when Justice Thomas was nominated to the supreme court.
What does matter is his 9-9-9 plan, how his 9-9-9 plan may very will win him the GOP primary, and how his 9-9-9 plan makes him completely unelectable in the general election. A vote for Herman Cain in the primaries is a vote for Obama's 2nd term. Let's face facts this guy isn't going to get many votes from the 46% of Americans that don't pay federal income taxes, seniors on fixed incomes (which is pretty much every senior), moderates, or independents. The electoral college results would be as monochromatic as it was in 1984 except this time the map would be more blue than the pope's balls. Liberals should be cheering Cain on until the day he wins the GOP primaries.
schadenfreude wrote:Liberals should be cheering Cain on until the day he wins the GOP primaries.
I am not speaking for any liberals but myself, and I consider myself much more of a moderate than a liberal, but:
I don't want a crappy GOP candidate to hand the election to Obama.
I want the best possible candidate for this country to come out of the GOP primary, so that we can then elect the best possible candidate as the POTUS. If Obama is the better candidate then so be it. But I want as many good options as possible, not "good and bad".
d-usa wrote:I am not speaking for any liberals but myself, and I consider myself much more of a moderate than a liberal, but:
I don't want a crappy GOP candidate to hand the election to Obama.
I want the best possible candidate for this country to come out of the GOP primary, so that we can then elect the best possible candidate as the POTUS. If Obama is the better candidate then so be it. But I want as many good options as possible, not "good and bad".
True. A good, healthy democracy is about strong candidates running against strong candidates, unfortunately most people seem more interested in their team than in a healthy democracy.
And more than that, I remember a lot of lefties hoping GW Bush won the Republican primary in 2000, because Gore couldn't possibly lose to an arch-conservative that was so stupid...
So far the only thing "admitted" to is that there was a settlement. That could be a nuisance settlement. The fact that Politico "won't discuss it" reeks of a political hit - even Democratic strategists are saying it. Anonymous sources? No fact backup? Running to conclusions. Its a Washington Post/New York Times speciality.
I agree with them, its potentially from another campaign.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote:
Frazzled wrote:I think the important thing to figure out is:
Was the Wshington Post waiting on this until he became popular, were they tipped off by the Obama election campaign, or the Perry campaign? The allegations are not exactly new.
1.) It's interesting to note that both Biicat and Frazzled immediately focused not on Cain's problems or his perfidy, but who reported it. Apparently the facts are substantially less important then what team logo the messenger is wearing. That's the important thing.
2.) I don't feel it likely this would have come from Obama's camp. Obama vs Cain matchups show Obama either solidly winning to shellacking Cain, depending who you ask. It's in Obama's interest to keep Cain in the running for as long as humanly possible, damaging all the other opponents but most especially Romney. I think Frazzled has it right when he thinks it was Perry's camp, since he's having a pretty tough time right now.
3.) None of this is really going to hurt him, anyway. The tax stuff is small potatoes, and the sexual harassment stuff doesn't have much in the way of teeth. The settlements surely include NDA's so the truth will never be known. Other politicians have survived way worse.
What message? Anonymous tips are meaningless. It may be real but until you put up or shut up its just a hit. The fact the usual suspects are lining up cackling maniacly supports my view frankly.
sebster wrote:I have no idea how you got "I don't understand how that works" from what I wrote, when the clear and obvious meaning was "I have no idea why anyone would put such a silly piece of tax code into place".
How you got this from my post I have no idea. I invite you to re-read my post. I didn't say you don't understand how it works, I said you don't understand the concept of interest deduction.
sebster wrote:Every country has interest deductions. You cannot have a construction industry without a piece of code that says "you get to claim a deduction for any interest expense incurred in the construction of an income producing asset".
And as I expected, you actually do understand the importance of interest deductions...
sebster wrote:That is wholly different to having a deduction for something that is purely for private consumption. Interest paid on the house loan is no different to interest paid on the car loan, or the television purchased on hire purchase. Giving people money back for spending on private consumption is moon logic.
...but instead you're making a purely political/nationalistic argument here.
Giving people money for interest paid on construction loans is no different than giving them money for private consumption.
sebster wrote:Yes, in a world where scoring cheap points for your own side is more important than journalistic quality, that kind of comment is totally important and completely relevant.
Presumably, that's why you raised it. Obviously you missed the part where I agreed with you.
sebster wrote:Meanwhile, over here where there's more important things than 'teehee I made a cheap shot at the other side' it's really important to recognise the difference between a political argument, while certainly targeted against one side, but built on facts and analysis and mean spirited gossip.
Yeah, that's what this thread is about. Trying to recognize the difference between mean spirited gossip and a political argument built on facts. This is an example of the former, not the latter.
sebster wrote:Uh huh. So now it's gone from rape, to rape allegation, and still nothing to substantiate how the rape that became a rape allegation almost pushed Clinton out of the presidency.
Well, it included at least the same level of substantiation as the current Cain issue. Cain doesn't have a sexual harassment problem like Clinton had. He has a "sexual harrasment allegation" problem like Clinton had a "rape allegation" problem. Except for Clinton it's cool because he's a liberal.
Ouze wrote:1.) It's interesting to note that both Biicat and Frazzled immediately focused not on Cain's problems or his perfidy, but who reported it. Apparently the facts are substantially less important then what team logo the messenger is wearing. That's the important thing.
Remember what NPR told us back in the day. What matters is not the nature of the evidence, but the seriousness of the charge.
If this story had some grain of truth then it would be worth discussing. But it doesn't.
Manufactured outrage at its best. Or maybe "a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves."
Dude, I think the police would disagree with you...
Dude bring it into a court and see how fast it gets thrown out, dude.
Considering how many police stations ask for tips, and provide for the option of tips being anonymous, really don't think you logic necessarily applies.
Dude, I think the police would disagree with you...
Dude bring it into a court and see how fast it gets thrown out, dude.
Considering how many police stations ask for tips, and provide for the option of tips being anonymous, really don't think you logic necessarily applies.
It only matters in Stalinist Russia. Tips are just tips. Again it means nothing. I received a tip you like Mauleed. Must be true. Have you secretly been hanging out with the former grandpoobah badass of Dakka? What were you two doing last Friday? The tip said it was bad.
Dude, I think the police would disagree with you...
Dude bring it into a court and see how fast it gets thrown out, dude.
Dude, anonymous tips are used for enforcement, not case building dude. Dude, they place people in locations with dates and can aid in an investigation which unearths actual evidence dude. Dude, they narrow down lists of suspects and make the job of criminal investigation often times much easier dude. Dude, like, did you know dude! Arrest warrants are aided by tips all the time dude!
biccat wrote:Remember what NPR told us back in the day. What matters is not the nature of the evidence, but the seriousness of the charge.
I'm not familiar with this phrase, and google was little help. But I don't put much weight in anonymous sources. The real story, in my mind, was Cain's instinctive lie: that nothing of the sort had ever happened, knowing full well it had. It shows the manner in which he handles a crisis: untruth, followed by walking back the lie when it becomes unsustainable. A little insight into his character, or lack thereof.
biccat wrote:If this story had some grain of truth then it would be worth discussing. But it doesn't.
Manufactured outrage at its best. Or maybe "a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves."
My first inclination was to produce a lengthy list of white politicians who have run into similar trouble and garnered similar media attention for it. The media attention has significantly less do do with the color of his skin then it does with the way the titillating nature of the subject matter resonates with cable audiences.
But, since this seems to be a morning of historical quotes, I'll paraphrase instead: "To be accused by one woman of sexual harassment may be regarded as a misfortune, to be accused by another looks like carelessness".
Ouze wrote:I'm not familiar with this phrase, and google was little help.
It was a phrase used by the illustrious Nina Totenberg to advance the story (which we now know to be complete fabrication) of Anita Hill during the Clarance Thomas hearings. Sure the evidence was bad, but the seriousness of the charge demanded an investigation.
Ouze wrote:The real story, in my mind, was Cain's instinctive lie: that nothing of the sort had ever happened, knowing full well it had. It shows the manner in which he handles a crisis: untruth, followed by walking back the lie when it becomes unsustainable. A little insight into his character, or lack thereof.
And I think this is sloppy journalism. Reporting a manufactured story to create insight into someones character, whether deserved or not, is at best dishonest.
edit: And I'm not sure what the untruth was. He said he didn't sexually harass anyone (which appears to be true). He also said he didn't know anything about the settlement, which also appears to be true.
Ouze wrote:My first inclination was to produce a lengthy list of white politicians who have run into similar trouble and garnered similar media attention for it. The media attention has significantly less do do with the color of his skin then it does with the way the titillating nature of the subject matter resonates with cable audiences.
Rarely, however, will you see similar media attention for such poorly sourced allegations.
I think that the color of his skin is only partially relevant here, the primary incentive for publishing this story is because Mr. Cain is a Republican.
AustonT wrote:Well that's what the left says, how about the unabashed far right.
Damn you Herman Cain for your "inappropriate gestures that were not overtly sexual"
Time will tell if this sticks to Cain.
Let's take the opinion of someone who said it is a pipe dream to make it illegal for women to vote, seriously.
Yup, a woman said it.
First of all I believe in ending women's suffrage. Women are suffering all over the world. Are you ok with that? A clip board and a tee shirt and I bet you could get hundreds of women to sign that petition at college campuses.
I wouldn't be suprised if Ann Coulter said the moon was made of green cheese, so long as it's republican cheese.
Chowderhead wrote:Who would win in a conspiracy theory fight: Ann Coulter or Rachel Maddow?
Discuss.
who cares put em in jello and see if Maddow can turn Coulter to the dark side. They both spout bogus nonsense, at least coulter doesn't pretend like she's a real or impartial journalist.
who cares put em in jello and see if Maddow can turn Coulter to the dark side. They both spout bogus nonsense, at least coulter doesn't pretend like she's a real or impartial journalist.
As per her biographical from Hannity, TMZ, Liberty Speaks, Business Insider, Wikipedia, etc.
Coulter has described herself as a polemicist who likes to "stir up the pot" and, unlike "broadcasters," does not "pretend to be impartial or balanced."
AustonT wrote:As per her biographical from Hannity, TMZ, Liberty Speaks, Business Insider, Wikipedia, etc.
Coulter has described herself as a polemicist who likes to "stir up the pot" and, unlike "broadcasters," does not "pretend to be impartial or balanced."
Yes, and like everything else she says that's a lie meant to pander to the 'grass roots'. She acts like someone pretending to be impartial in a system that is liberal biased. I don't give a flying feth what she says she is.
Ouze wrote:1.) It's interesting to note that both Biicat and Frazzled immediately focused not on Cain's problems or his perfidy, but who reported it. Apparently the facts are substantially less important then what team logo the messenger is wearing.
AustonT wrote:Ahh, invincible ignorance. The refuge of the mighty.
Yes, I'm sure my subjective views on the actions of a media personality known for polemic and demagoguery veiled in vox populi costume is truly overcome by a quote from that exact persons biography on what they are.
Next in the AustonT news hour: We look into OJs biography to see if he killed his wife!
who cares put em in jello and see if Maddow can turn Coulter to the dark side. They both spout bogus nonsense, at least coulter doesn't pretend like she's a real or impartial journalist.
Yes. She does.
AustonT wrote:As per her biographical from Hannity, TMZ, Liberty Speaks, Business Insider, Wikipedia, etc.
ShumaGorath wrote:I don't give a flying feth what she says she is.
AustonT is my new favorite poster.
Sorry Fraz. Post more pictures of wiener dogs and you might retake the top spot.
You're both damn lucky no one regularly posts lolcats.
Ouze wrote:1.) It's interesting to note that both Biicat and Frazzled immediately focused not on Cain's problems or his perfidy, but who reported it. Apparently the facts are substantially less important then what team logo the messenger is wearing.
Well said. The hypocrisy is glaring.
Coming from you thats especially meaningless. Having said that I'll bite. As there are no actual charges, or minor things like you know evidence, I'll keep to my view this is a hack job.
Hey if Clinton can do it and admit to it nad myself not particularly give a , I think I'll still give Cain the ebenfit of the doubt until some actual evidence appears.
Now if Cain blows the response particularly badly that will matter to me as it shows ineffective crisis management, but then again he won't be the Republican Presidential nominee at that point, so again I won't care.
If you haven't seen this video of Rick Perry's bizarre speech from Oct. 28 (at times involving a jug of maple syrup) it is priceless unintentional comedy. Creepy and weird, you have to see it for yourself.
You can see the weirdest, funniest and most bizarre parts edited together here:
BrassScorpion wrote:If you haven't seen this video of Rick Perry's bizarre speech from Oct. 28 (at times involving a jug of maple syrup) it is priceless unintentional comedy. Creepy and weird, you have to see it for yourself.
Just out of curiosity, do you intend to participate in discussions here, particularly the ones you initiate, or are you simply here to disparage the various Republican candidates and plug Maddow's blog?
BrassScorpion wrote:If you haven't seen this video of Rick Perry's bizarre speech from Oct. 28 (at times involving a jug of maple syrup) it is priceless unintentional comedy. Creepy and weird, you have to see it for yourself.
Just out of curiosity, do you intend to participate in discussions here, particularly the ones you initiate, or are you simply here to disparage the various Republican candidates and plug Maddow's blog?
"Look, if you're interested in serious debate, the internet is not the place for it." biccat - 2011
Also, his posting history in this forum section shows that he's happy to just linkspam.
BrassScorpion wrote:If you haven't seen this video of Rick Perry's bizarre speech from Oct. 28 (at times involving a jug of maple syrup) it is priceless unintentional comedy. Creepy and weird, you have to see it for yourself.
You can see the weirdest, funniest and most bizarre parts edited together here:
Rick Perry - Full, uncut "drunk" Cornerstone New Hampshire speech - Friday, 28 October, 2011
Thats nothing. COme on, I expect better from our new dedicated Democratic talking points liason.
Look up Adios Mofo and Perry traffic stop.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
BrassScorpion wrote:If you haven't seen this video of Rick Perry's bizarre speech from Oct. 28 (at times involving a jug of maple syrup) it is priceless unintentional comedy. Creepy and weird, you have to see it for yourself.
Just out of curiosity, do you intend to participate in discussions here, particularly the ones you initiate, or are you simply here to disparage the various Republican candidates and plug Maddow's blog?
BS (oh thats interesting right there) will take "B" for $200. Its not even the right thread, which means its kind of trolling.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
biccat wrote:
BrassScorpion wrote:If you haven't seen this video of Rick Perry's bizarre speech from Oct. 28 (at times involving a jug of maple syrup) it is priceless unintentional comedy. Creepy and weird, you have to see it for yourself.
Just out of curiosity, do you intend to participate in discussions here, particularly the ones you initiate, or are you simply here to disparage the various Republican candidates and plug Maddow's blog?
"Look, if you're interested in serious debate, the internet is not the place for it."
biccat - 2011
Also, his posting history in this forum section shows that he's happy to just linkspam.
Cain drips details of harassment charges, vows innocence
By Corbett B. Daly
UPDATED 11:34 a.m. ET
After initially denying any recollection of the incidents surrounding charges of inappropriate interactions with women who worked under him more than a decade ago, White House hopeful Herman Cain is slowly dripping out details of what happened.
"I am not trying to hide anything I am trying to put it all out there for people to see," Cain said in an interview with Headline News Tuesday.
On Fox News Monday night, the businessman told host Greta Van Susteren he could not even remember the name of one of the women who worked in the Washington office of the National Restaurant Association, which Cain led for more than two years in the late 1990s.
"But I do remember the formal allegations she made in terms of sexual harassment," Cain said, again denying he did anything inappropriate.
"I have never sexually harassed anybody in my life. And this formal charge was made. And then once it was made, I recused myself and turned it over to my general counsel and one of the other executives that worked for me," Cain said, continuing his insistence that the charges were bogus.
He said he was trying to remember what happened.
"All day today, as I've been getting beat up, I've been trying to recall what some of those things were and haven't been able to recall a lot of them because that's why they got dismissed," he said, referring to the questions thrown his way after Politico broke the story Sunday.
"But here's the one incident that I recall as the day has gone on. She was in my office one day, and I made a gesture saying, Oh -- and I was standing close to her. And I made a gesture, You're the same height as my wife, and brought my hand -- didn't touch her -- up to my chin and said, You're the same height of my wife because my wife comes up to my chin, my wife of 43 years," he told Van Susteren.
On Tuesday, Cain was asked why he started to remember more details as Monday wore on, since the Van Susteren interview was the last of the day and had the most details about the incident.
"Remember this was 12 years ago, and I was trying to recollect this in the middle of an already busy planned day. A major speech in the morning. A major luncheon speech at the Press Club," Cain said.
"And so the only other thing I could remember when I was asked about any specific things that were in the allegations I came up with the fact that I made a gesture by putting my hand under my chin standing near this lady saying, oh you are the same height as my wife. My wife is five feet tall. She comes up to my chin. I was simply making that comparison. We were in my office, the door was wide open and my assistant was sitting right outside," he added.
The Headline News anchor Robin Meade asked Cain if had spoken with people involved in the meantime to refresh his memory.
"No I just started to remember more," Cain said, "this was not exactly something that I had top of mind."
Cain was also asked on Fox Monday about the amount of money given the women to settle the dispute, and he said it was probably about two to three months salary.
"But I can't guarantee that it was two months or three months. I just know it was well within the range of what we would do if we had an amicable separation between the association and an employee," he said.
At the National Press Club earlier in the day, Cain said he knew nothing about a financial deal with the women.
"I am unaware of any kind of settlement. I hope it wasn't for much, because I didn't do anything. But the fact of the matter is, I'm not aware of a settlement that came out of that accusation," Cain told the audience.
ShumaGorath wrote:"Look, if you're interested in serious debate, the internet is not the place for it."
Wise words from a wise man.
ShumaGorath wrote:biccat - 2011
Oh, geez, aren't my ears red.
ShumaGorath wrote:Also, his posting history in this forum section shows that he's happy to just linkspam.
Fair enough.
But then isn't that trolling?
No, I think it's more spamming, but it's got on topic content so it's not really even that. I'd rather see his posts then what relapse tosses out personally and they're both allowed in.
AustonT wrote:Ahh, invincible ignorance. The refuge of the mighty.
Yes, I'm sure my subjective views on the actions of a media personality known for polemic and demagoguery veiled in vox populi costume is truly overcome by a quote from that exact persons biography on what they are.
Next in the AustonT news hour: We look into OJs biography to see if he killed his wife!
AustonT wrote:And you started a nonsensical argument. Give up and walk away.
You were pulling down logical loopholes when you referenced Coulters autobio for proof of how she acts in front of the camera, then when I made a joke suddenly it's a nonsensical argument. Of course it's non nonsensical, i was responding to your inane sentiment in the first place. It doesn't stop being non sensical when I parody it. Evidence of accusations against someones behavior are not combated by reading that persons own autobiography. That's idiotic.
ShumaGorath wrote:No, I think it's more spamming, but it's got on topic content so it's not really even that. I'd rather see his posts then what relapse tosses out personally and they're both allowed in.
Well, you could probably start at Maddow's blog and get a good preview. Throw in a dose of Bill Maher and you're basically right on track.
On a side note, I'm really disappointed at the content of Maddow's blog. There's a whole blog post dedicated to analyzing and discussing a colloquialism that Rick Perry used in an offhand manner. As if it's some newsworthy or relevant issue.
ShumaGorath wrote:No, I think it's more spamming, but it's got on topic content so it's not really even that. I'd rather see his posts then what relapse tosses out personally and they're both allowed in.
Well, you could probably start at Maddow's blog and get a good preview. Throw in a dose of Bill Maher and you're basically right on track.
On a side note, I'm really disappointed at the content of Maddow's blog. There's a whole blog post dedicated to analyzing and discussing a colloquialism that Rick Perry used in an offhand manner. As if it's some newsworthy or relevant issue.
I'd rather that then climategate/birthcirtificate/deathpanels that the other 'side' blogs about. If anything she has a hell of a lot of room to be more viscous and bombastic. She could get some real good lying in there before shes up with the greats.
Bwahahaha.
I said she doesn't claim to be impartial.
You said she did.
I posted a quote from multiple sources where she specifically says she's not impartial.
You deny that claim because she said it.
Since the entire point was what she did or did not say about herself, and you failing to refute her own words, using her own words.
AustonT wrote:Bwahahaha. I said she doesn't claim to be impartial. You said she did. I posted a quote from multiple sources where she specifically says she's not impartial. You deny that claim because she said it.
Since the entire point was what she did or did not say about herself, and you failing to refute her own words, using her own words.
who cares put em in jello and see if Maddow can turn Coulter to the dark side. They both spout bogus nonsense, at least coulter doesn't pretend like she's a real or impartial journalist.
You said pretend. If you're going to try to change history it's best to hit the edit button first. Otherwise two clicks later you look like a fool. Someone can claim to be one thing and pretend another, it's the nature of pretending. Since she has built a career on lying to people intentionally I'm happy to discount her 'claims' in her book and simply look at her actions. She acts which is her pretending to be an impartial media personality that just wants to be the light of truth in the murkey waters of liberal media bias. That she isn't consistent in her autobio isn't surprising. She probably didn't write it.
ShumaGorath wrote:If anything she has a hell of a lot of room to be more viscous and bombastic. She could get some real good lying in there before shes up with the greats.
I'm not sure how she could become more viscous. Maybe if she ate a lot of Jell-O or something.
Frazzled wrote:I think the important thing to figure out is:
Was the Wshington Post waiting on this until he became popular, were they tipped off by the Obama election campaign, or the Perry campaign? The allegations are not exactly new.
Too bad they didn't sit on it until he was the repub nominee.
They're more then happy to when they're hot topics. There was quite a bit of blogging on death panels and climate-gate. The manufactured underground is what helped both bits of yellow journalism survive for so long.
I'm not sure how she could become more viscous. Maybe if she ate a lot of Jell-O or something.
Bonemeal and water!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:Then post a quote, in context, where Ann coulter claims to be impartial.
I don't think you're understanding whats being written. Go back and try again.
ShumaGorath wrote:They're more then happy to when they're hot topics. There was quite a bit of blogging on death panels and climate-gate. The manufactured underground is what helped both bits of yellow journalism survive for so long.
I probably should have specified that I was referring to "Birthers." They generally weren't well tolerated at the bigger blogs that get most of the traffic. I can think of a few bloggers who regularly raised the issue, but it wasn't pervasive.
The birther story was advanced more by the left-wing media and bloggers as an attempt to discredit Republicans more than it was a genuine movement among the right. My personal interest was academic, because I think the standing issue is an excellent legal question.
It certainly was nowhere as pervasive as Truthers on the left.
As for "death panels" and "climate gate," it's a matter of perspective. Neither was nearly as absurd as birthers.
I don't think you understand how discussion works. The burden of proof is on you to refute my statement, followed by proof. Otherwise your just talking out of your fourth point of contact.
ShumaGorath wrote:They're more then happy to when they're hot topics. There was quite a bit of blogging on death panels and climate-gate. The manufactured underground is what helped both bits of yellow journalism survive for so long.
I probably should have specified that I was referring to "Birthers." They generally weren't well tolerated at the bigger blogs that get most of the traffic. I can think of a few bloggers who regularly raised the issue, but it wasn't pervasive.
The birther story was advanced more by the left-wing media and bloggers as an attempt to discredit Republicans more than it was a genuine movement among the right. My personal interest was academic, because I think the standing issue is an excellent legal question.
It certainly was nowhere as pervasive as Truthers on the left.
As for "death panels" and "climate gate," it's a matter of perspective. Neither was nearly as absurd as birthers.
Perhaps not as absurd, but much more insidious and damaging on the whole and all three were equally as false. The death panel thing still gets to me. That American journalism has fallen so far and so fast is striking.
AustonT wrote:I don't think you understand how discussion works. The burden of proof is on you to refute my statement, followed by proof. Otherwise your just talking out of your fourth point of contact.
AustonT wrote:I don't think you understand how discussion works. The burden of proof is on you to refute my statement, followed by proof. Otherwise your just talking out of your fourth point of contact.
Look, I've had the roundabout "I refuse to be wrong" arguments with dozens on here before. Biccat and frazzled included. Hell, I've even done so myself in the past. At this point you're decrying something that has happened. You slipped up and made a claim that refuted nothing after misspeaking 'pretend' for 'claim' and then claimed that you said something different. You didn't. It's one page previous and I've now quoted it twice. That one word difference invalidates most of your posts after it. Just admit to misspeaking or stop posting about it at all, this line of conversation is ramping into the absurd.
Either way I have no interest in continuing this line of argument. It's boring and annoying. So I won't.
You can't pretend to be one thing while openly claiming to be another.
Yes. You can. That's how acting works. If you can't understand something so basically simple then we're done here. You're either trolling me or somehow damaged.
Yes seek solace in the, "I can't win or admit that I'm wrong so this is boring" Castle. Let's call it Wrongalot on the isle of denial.
I so hurt that you've now reverted to insults. I may die of shock and horror. I'm idiotic and somehow damaged. My heart fair bleeds as you fade into the curtain of anonymity the interwebz provides you and your ilk. Farewell sweet world.
Or your just a donkey cave.
AustonT wrote:I so hurt that you've now reverted to insults. I may die of shock and horror. I'm idiotic and somehow damaged. My heart fair bleeds as you fade into the curtain of anonymity the interwebz provides you and your ilk. Farewell sweet world.
Or your just a donkey cave.
AustonT wrote:As per her biographical from Hannity, TMZ, Liberty Speaks, Business Insider, Wikipedia, etc.
Coulter has described herself as a polemicist who likes to "stir up the pot" and, unlike "broadcasters," does not "pretend to be impartial or balanced."
I was unaware that the simple condition of being a broadcaster implied a claim to impartiality, or balance.
Perhaps this is indicative of the polemic Coulter herself claims to espouse.
I am amazed that politicians in this day and age have not realized that there is nothing in their past that they can hide.
They keep on saying crap like "I don't remember","not sure", "lies lies lies!" and Bill Clintonesque versions of "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is"
Maybe I am just naive, but it seems like the best course of action would be to just admit and say you are sorry.
I mean, you have two options:
1) Deny, divert, attempt to talk about other things, and fight the original story for who knows how long, always keeping it on the front page of media sources with an agenda. Story now is "Cain is a womanizer, liar, cheater, things he is above the law, if he lies about something small like this how can we trust him with anything else!!!!!"
2) Admit what you did, explain what you did to correct it, what you learned, and how very very sorry you are (lying is optional, you are a politician after all), kiss a baby if you have to. Story now is "Cain messed up, learned from his mistakes, honest enough to talk about it".
Probably just my naive opinion about this though...
"But here's the one incident that I recall as the day has gone on. She was in my office one day, and I made a gesture saying, Oh -- and I was standing close to her. And I made a gesture, You're the same height as my wife, and brought my hand -- didn't touch her -- up to my chin and said, You're the same height of my wife because my wife comes up to my chin, my wife of 43 years," he told Van Susteren.
The hell? This is honestly the story he's going with? Making some inane patter about being so tall?
You have 300 million people in your country and this guy is among the most capable politicians you could find? What the hell is going on?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:On a side note, I'm really disappointed at the content of Maddow's blog. There's a whole blog post dedicated to analyzing and discussing a colloquialism that Rick Perry used in an offhand manner. As if it's some newsworthy or relevant issue.
Maddow frequently wanders off into some pretty pointless territory, looking to construct things that just aren't there. That she's held up by some as a bastion of quality journalism speaks volumes for the terrible state of modern journalism.
But that still doesn't make her as bad as the likes of Coulter, who trades almost exclusively in contentless personal attacks.
sebster wrote:The hell? This is honestly the story he's going with? Making some inane patter about being so tall?
Well, we don't know if it isn't true. I mean if it turns out not to be, then shame on him for not being more creative. But I mean if this is the truth you honestly can't have any problems with that.
sebster wrote:You have 300 million people in your country and this guy is among the most capable politicians you could find? What the hell is going on?
We has capable politician???? I was not aware!
sebster wrote:Maddow frequently wanders off into some pretty pointless territory, looking to construct things that just aren't there. That she's held up by some as a bastion of quality journalism speaks volumes for the terrible state of modern journalism.
Preach it my brotha!
sebster wrote:But that still doesn't make her as bad as the likes of Coulter, who trades almost exclusively in content less personal attacks.
I would say that they are both pretty detestable. I would build a chemical shed for each of them with equal enjoyment.
He says that there was no harassment. And when you look at the way thees things go 90% of all these cases are settled out of court. It don't mean hes lying and look at people like Bill Clinton and Barney Frank, oh and don't forget the Kennedy's they have alot worse record than harassment accusations.
Nothing. BrassScorpion is just borderline spamming and trying to avoid participating in any actual discussion. Just ignore him and let's get back to talking about the allegations against Cain and whether or not they're at all relevant.
never seen your face anyway]
, I think I'll still give Cain the ebenfit of the doubt until some actual evidence appears.
