Check out some similar questions!

excon · Nov 4, 2011, 09:06 PM

Originally Posted by smoothy

What never heard of scorned women dreaming things up before?

Hello again, smoothy:

You're barking up the wrong tree.. Let's go over this again..

Sure, I've heard of women dreaming up stuff. But, when they COMPLAIN, and you're INNOCENT, you don't CAVE and pay them off. You DEFEND yourself, and face your accusers in court (to borrow a phrase from you). Cain didn't do that. He caved. Now, I don't know if he was falsely accused or not. All I know is that he didn't defend himself. I get a message from that. You get an entirely different one. I don't know how. Oh, yes I do. You wear right wing blinders.

excon

tomder55 · Nov 5, 2011, 03:09 AM

He was not involved in the settlement . It was a decision of the National Restaurant Association.
This has gone on a week and nobody has anything on Cain . The Restaurant Assc. Has released the woman from the agreement and she still will not go public... oh her lawyer is sure she had a case. He says so with certainty in between his numerous "I don't recall" responses to questions from the press.
Unlike you ,I am going under the presumption of innocences ;and all I need is the Duke Lacross case as a template as to what can happen when men are falsely accused. Or I can look at the lame attempt of the left to take down Clarence Thomas ;one of the finest jurists this country has ever produced.

tomder55 · Nov 5, 2011, 04:40 AM

Her statement yesterday was that she and her husband 'see no value' in revisiting the case. Which means either that no one has offered her enough money to go public; or by going public she will be exposed as a fraud.
Or maybe she's afraid of some James Carville type dragging her name through the mud... ( "Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find. " )... oh wait... that was a Dem.

tomder55 · Nov 5, 2011, 09:57 AM

I saw the unemployment figures announced and then I realize that 9%-9%-9% is also the Obama unemployment plan.

excon · Nov 5, 2011, 10:22 AM

Hello again, tom:

So, it's fine with you, that your candidate didn't know that China has nukes, doesn't know what a neocon is, doesn't understand the right of return, and is WILLING to FAKE his way through it.

That's what he's doing. He was asked about the right of return by Chris Wallace.. You could SEE the blank stare in his eyes. Wallace HELPED him. He made up an answer about that right needing to be negotiated.

The next day on Greta's show, he ADMITTED that he had no clue what the right of return is. He MADE IT UP. HE DID IT ON NATIONAL TV WHILE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT OF THE FREE WORLD.

I'm APPALLED.. You should be too.

excon

Wondergirl · Nov 5, 2011, 10:31 AM

Don't forget Cain's quote from a great poet: "Life can be a challenge, life can seem impossible, but it's never easy when there's so much on the line."

tomder55 · Nov 5, 2011, 10:52 AM

If you saw my comments to tal (#73)you know that I am very concerned about his lack of understanding of foreign policy . He is not my candidate . But I am stepping up to the plate to defend him against this slander. The Politico is not reporting about his foreign policy answers ;but they must've done over 50 reportings in the last week on this non-story.

Wondergirl · Nov 5, 2011, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

But I am stepping up to the plate to defend him against this slander.

Why do you think it's slander? The women didn't resurrect this. And, as a woman in the workworld for 35 years, I have no doubt it really happened -- why else the payoffs back then?

tomder55 · Nov 5, 2011, 11:03 AM

I have no idea... Cain wasn't a party to the settlement . What I do know is that he disputed the charges then ;and he still does today.

Wondergirl · Nov 5, 2011, 11:06 AM

Of course, any male will dispute similar charges!

excon · Nov 5, 2011, 11:27 AM

Hello again, tom:

As smoothy is quick to remind us, he COULD have faced his accuser in court, but he paid 'em off instead...

Now, I'm not saying he did it, and I'm not saying he didn't. All I'm saying, is he had a CHANCE to defend himself, and he didn't take it. He WAS the CEO, after all.

excon

tomder55 · Nov 5, 2011, 12:34 PM

He did not pay them off. He denied the charges and the NRA made the deal.

I give the benefit of the doubt to cases like his and Jesse Jackson's . What ? You didn't hear about that ? Doesn't surprise me.
http://gawker.com/5842534/gay-ex+sta...discrimination

As has already been pointed out the only issue that will come of this is the fact that he doesn't have a campaign organization preparing canned answers for him ;and deflecting "bimbo eruptions " (hmmm where did I hear that one before ? ).

Wondergirl · Nov 5, 2011, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

he doesn't have a campaign organization preparing canned answers for him

Why would he need this?

tomder55 · Nov 5, 2011, 12:38 PM

Don't know... why would a 2 term sitting President need it ?

excon · Nov 5, 2011, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

He did not pay them off. He denied the charges and the NRA made the deal.

Hello again, tom:

That's why I mentioned that he was the CEO. HE, and the NRA were indistinguishable. If HE wanted to defend himself, he could have ORDERED it. He didn't.

excon

tomder55 · Nov 5, 2011, 12:45 PM

The fact is that all that is is speculation . He was CEO but that means squat if the board of directors make a different call. He left the job shortly after . Did he resign in protest to the settlement ? Was he forced out ? You don't know and neither do I .
Do you really want another Ray Donnovan scenario with Cain asking which office he goes to to get his reputation back ?

excon · Nov 5, 2011, 01:08 PM

Hello again, tom:

Personally, I'm sorry the story broke. I'd much rather have him defend his positions rather than something like this. I've been a victim of false allegations.. There's really no defense to it.

excon

Wondergirl · Nov 5, 2011, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by excon

There's really no defense to it.

And it works the other way too. Your male supervisor comes on to you, a female employee. Then what? Most of us either give in, going along with it somehow, or walk away at the risk of our jobs.

tomder55 · Nov 5, 2011, 03:13 PM

You both make valid points... I have a personal poilicy of no fraternization with my staff and I never have meetings in my office with my door closed . I am a stiff at the Holiday party...

It used to not be that way. But I've seen predatory behavior of both sexes and have sat through many HR meetings related to this subject.
Boston Legal doesn't happen anymore .

paraclete · Nov 5, 2011, 04:50 PM

You know what this shows once again that there is a glimmer of light and then human nature is shown for what it is. Throw one more on the scrap heap and let's move on