Burn Cain!! Slowly. And. Surely.

[takoma]

I originally thought that whatever the facts were, it's better to get them out than to have the story keep going. But since Cain seems to be doing well at both donations and polling, while virtually blocking his opponents out of the news, maybe he and Block are smarter than I had realized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty clear that the Huffington Post (among others) has had a lot of fun skewering Cain all week! Love their headline this morning -- "Herman's Squirmin'"!! (-:

"and Clinton's spermin"

It's always funny to me that "conservatives" can't seem to wrap their minds around the concept of "consent".

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty clear that the Huffington Post (among others) has had a lot of fun skewering Cain all week! Love their headline this morning -- "Herman's Squirmin'"!! (-:

"and Clinton's spermin"

It's always funny to me that "conservatives" can't seem to wrap their minds around the concept of "consent".

Clinton was accused of a lot more than consensual sex.

[Anonymous]

The harassment complaints themselves are less telling than how he has handled the scandal: Denial, anger, how dare you, then the race card. He comes off looking arrogant and like someone with no integrity, or political savvy, whatsoever. Also spoiled and immature. Totally not ready for prime time.

[Anonymous]

takoma wrote:Clinton has been brought up several times, as though to say that we elected Clinton despite worse stories. But given how Clinton's Monication messed up the country, it may be no favor to Cain to connect him to Clinton.

Nobody wants to be associated with a likely rapist and a definate predator. I totally agree.

[Anonymous]

I understand opposing Cain over this issue, but the post title is awfully hateful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I understand opposing Cain over this issue, but the post title is awfully hateful.

Agree. Off-putting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understand opposing Cain over this issue, but the post title is awfully hateful.

Agree. Off-putting.

Cain has hateful ways about him.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty clear that the Huffington Post (among others) has had a lot of fun skewering Cain all week! Love their headline this morning -- "Herman's Squirmin'"!! (-:

"and Clinton's spermin"

It's always funny to me that "conservatives" can't seem to wrap their minds around the concept of "consent".

Clinton was accused of a lot more than consensual sex.

Wait, let's be clear. Clinton was accused by Paula Jones of sexual harassment, not rape. Clinton won that case on summary judgment, and she eventually accepted a settlement that did not include an apology.

Catherine Willey accused him of assault for kissing her. Ken Starr chose not to prosecute this because he found that she gave conflicting testimony.

[Anonymous]

Wait, let's be clear. Clinton was accused by Paula Jones of sexual harassment, not rape. Clinton won that case on summary judgment, and she eventually accepted a settlement that did not include an apology.

Cain has a long way to go to catch up to Clinton. That settlement that "did not include an appology" was for $850K not $~40K. Maybe one of Cain's interns will produce a cum stained dress...

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's always funny to me that "conservatives" can't seem to wrap their minds around the concept of "consent".

Clinton was accused of a lot more than consensual sex.

Wait, let's be clear. Clinton was accused by Paula Jones of sexual harassment, not rape. Clinton won that case on summary judgment, and she eventually accepted a settlement that did not include an apology.

Catherine Willey accused him of assault for kissing her. Ken Starr chose not to prosecute this because he found that she gave conflicting testimony.

Sure, but both were allegations of sexual offenses, i.e. thing other than consensual sex. I'm not taking any position on those, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to draw parallels.

[Anonymous]

and more importantly (to me), he lied about it under oath.

[Anonymous]

Monday night, Cain warned that China is "trying to develop nuclear capability." China first detonated a nuclear device in 1964.

Cain 2012!

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty clear that the Huffington Post (among others) has had a lot of fun skewering Cain all week! Love their headline this morning -- "Herman's Squirmin'"!! (-:

"and Clinton's spermin"

It's always funny to me that "conservatives" can't seem to wrap their minds around the concept of "consent".

Clinton was accused of a lot more than consensual sex.

Which accusation were you referring to? One of the rape accusations, or that he killed Vince Foster? Or that he headed a murderous drug-dealing ring?

Heck, by this measure, we could say 'W' was accused of even worse than these two: he actually plotted and gave the order to blow up the World Trade Center, and ok'ed the demolition of the Pentagon to cover up the conspiracy. And he went AWOL from the TANG. Also, Laura Bush killed someone.

There's a difference between accusations and a cash pay-out to settle a sexual harassment case. We know Clinton got a blowjob from a young woman who wanted to give him a blowjob. We know that Cain was accused by several women of sexually harrassing them, and that the accusations were severe enough that NRA legal counsel paid them to settle.

The bottom line is, there are always allegations swirling around political figures, particularly left-wing political figures. That's because there's a multi-billion dollar industry that is dedicated to manufacturing (and uncovering) such allegations. That Clinton was a rapist is an unsubstantiated allegation. That Cain's NRA had to pay off multiple women to settle multiple sexual harassment suits is a fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:and more importantly (to me), he lied about it under oath.

And frankly, there's some evidence that Clinton did *not* lie about it under oath. From wikipedia:

In his deposition for the Jones lawsuit, Clinton denied having "sexual relations" with Lewinsky. Based on the evidence provided by Tripp, a blue dress with Clinton's semen, Starr concluded that this sworn testimony was false and perjurious.

During the deposition, Clinton was asked "Have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court?" The judge ordered that Clinton be given an opportunity to review the agreed definition. Afterwards, based on the definition created by the Independent Counsel's Office, Clinton answered "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky." Clinton later stated, "I thought the definition included any activity by [me], where [I] was the actor and came in contact with those parts of the bodies" which had been explicitly listed (and "with an intent to gratify or arouse the sexual desire of any person"). In other words, Clinton denied that he had ever contacted Lewinsky's "genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks", and effectively claimed that the agreed-upon definition of "sexual relations" included giving oral sex but excluded receiving oral sex.[24]

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal#Perjury_charges)

While his answer was a legalistic--one might say "Clintonian"--answer, it's arguable that it didn't meet the definition provide, and therefore wasn't perjury. Obviously he wasn't going to appeal the judge's decision, given that the penalty was $90k. A small price to put the mess behind him. Heck, a Republican Senate voted for acquittal on both perjury and obstruction of justice charges.