Anonymous wrote:

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.

Uh. Not Really. Except for the Willey woman--in which case she should have just kneed him in the groin and got on with her life--Clinton didn't force himself on women. The herman Cain thing is different--she was in his car and he shoved his hand up there? SCUMBAG.

Anonymous wrote:
Allegedly involved. The woman didn't tell anyone about this in 14 years! With such a long lag time she needs to have some evidence for me to take her seriously. Like everyone else who is commenting online and in the media I don't know what happened with this woman or who is telling the truth. But to keep quiet about something like this For 14 years then come out with it and a celebrity lawyer when it suits is highly suspicious. Even though she isn't suing Cain I will be stunned if she is not trying to gain from this financially: book deal, paid interviews or just 15 minutes of fame. I will choose to ignore anything this woman says. The other accusers went on the record with their claims whether true or false.

Anonymous wrote:tThis does have all the elements--Dark Black man (clarence Thomas--"who has left this pubic hair on my Coke can...?") And Cain shoves his hand up a white woman. Or is that Clarence? You know, I can't keep my Uncle Toms straight.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the president can get a rim job from an intern in the Oval Office and not lose his job then I don't see why Cain can't keep his job of being a candidate. He is only a candidate.

Are you not capable of understanding the difference between consensual and non-consensual, or do you simply refuse to recognize the difference?

I can only go by what I have read about. I understand consensual and non-consensual but I am not sure that doing an intern as her superior means it was consensual. I do know that when she said no to Cain he stopped.

Anonymous wrote:There is now a fifth woman who has come out. This one occurred in 2003.

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

Cain 2012!

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:tThis does have all the elements--Dark Black man (clarence Thomas--"who has left this pubic hair on my Coke can...?") And Cain shoves his hand up a white woman. Or is that Clarence? You know, I can't keep my Uncle Toms straight.

Based on your displayed intellect, I'm surprised that you can tie your shoes in the morning.

jsteele wrote:Apparently Fox News failed to report accurately.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the president can get a rim job from an intern in the Oval Office and not lose his job then I don't see why Cain can't keep his job of being a candidate. He is only a candidate.

Are you not capable of understanding the difference between consensual and non-consensual, or do you simply refuse to recognize the difference?

One other point, because the few remaining ideologues on the right seem to be a particularly obtuse lot: You do understand that Cain *can* keep his job "of being a candidate", right? No one's going to legally remove him from the position. Do you get this simple concept?

It's a bit like "consent". I know it's very tricky, but when you run for office as a candidate, your goal presumably is to convince a sufficient number of people to vote you into office. Cain's free to do this as long as he likes. Just as the morally stunted GOP primary voters are free to move even closer to him with the news that he's essentially committed sexual assault.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the president can get a rim job from an intern in the Oval Office and not lose his job then I don't see why Cain can't keep his job of being a candidate. He is only a candidate.

Certainly he can continue to be a candidate. His main problem will be getting donations and votes and if people choose to give him money and votes, well, no reason he should quit.

However, there's an important distinction between the two incidents you just cited. One involved consenting adults - stupid, irresponsible adults for whom I have contempt - but consenting nevertheless. The other involved an aggressive unwanted advance against an unemployed person looking for help finding a job with a verbal offer suggesting an immoral and illegal exchange - you blow me and I'll get you a job. If you strip these incidents of the celebrities involved, which incident fills you with more contempt? Not a contest for me.

Yeah if people want to give him money and vote for him, that's their business - but the two incidents are not the same by a long shot. And yelling Clinton, Clinton, Clinton at every opportunity is not going to change that.

Allegedly involved. The woman didn't tell anyone about this in 14 years! With such a long lag time she needs to have some evidence for me to take her seriously. Like everyone else who is commenting online and in the media I don't know what happened with this woman or who is telling the truth. But to keep quiet about something like this For 14 years then come out with it and a celebrity lawyer when it suits is highly suspicious. Even though she isn't suing Cain I will be stunned if she is not trying to gain from this financially: book deal, paid interviews or just 15 minutes of fame. I will choose to ignore anything this woman says. The other accusers went on the record with their claims whether true or false.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is now a fifth woman who has come out. This one occurred in 2003.

Where is this reported?