I assume the poster meant enter Cain's sexually harrassed victim number 4. Now will there be a fifth victim.

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Enter #4...

Better yet, leave RED and enter BLUE.

Please clarify. Thanks!

If you want clarification of "enter #4", I can't give it, since I have no idea what that means. But I was curious how s/he did the large format, and in figuring that out I realized I could do colors, so I made a little joke about switching from red (GOP) to blue (dem); nothing serious on part.

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Enter #4...

Better yet, leave RED and enter BLUE.

Please clarify. Thanks!

TheMan..... is the worst poster on this forum. Whenever he does the bit with the cutting and pasting an entire discussion, with his asinine refutations for each silly point, all it results in is a complete derailment of an otherwise healthy discussion. Wish he would go away.

Anonymous wrote:Enter #4...

Better yet, leave RED and enter BLUE.

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not offended. I am amused.

Ah, right - you're just a troll. Stroll by, drop whatever pointless and distracting BS falls out of your head, beam at it as if it were gold, and laugh about the mess you've made. "Look! I made a poopie!"

Good for you! Aren't you a big girl?! You entered a comment in an internet disucssion!

Uh no, I'm not a troll. I made a legitimate point about an ex-President. You have deemed it irrelevant, but it is not irrelevant. This is a thread in which sexual harassment claims for candidates to POTUS are being discussed, and Clinton in particular has been brought up a few times. I can't help it if I am amused by your reaction, but let's face it you have been looking for an apology for who-knows-what, and now you are blabbering on about poopies. That's not what I came here for, but that is certainly where you have brought this discussion.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I've been following the postings here and the tracking Cain in the news. I don't "hate" Cain, but I really don't like him. That said, he seems to be weathering this firestorm pretty dam well. Question: Republicans clearly don't like Romney. Are they (you) willing to put all of their professed "values" positions aside and vote for someone like Cain? Seems awfully desperate/hypocritical to me...

I share your bemusement. Not so much about why they are willing to stick with him as he flounders through this sexual harassment stuff, but because his policy stuff is muddled. For example, the foreign policy confusion and switching from 999 to 909, but much more importantly the claim to be 100% pro-life even as he says it should be a woman's choice.

OP here. I've been following the postings here and the tracking Cain in the news. I don't "hate" Cain, but I really don't like him. That said, he seems to be weathering this firestorm pretty dam well. Question: Republicans clearly don't like Romney. Are they (you) willing to put all of their professed "values" positions aside and vote for someone like Cain? Seems awfully desperate/hypocritical to me...

Anonymous wrote:I'm not offended. I am amused.

Ah, right - you're just a troll. Stroll by, drop whatever pointless and distracting BS falls out of your head, beam at it as if it were gold, and laugh about the mess you've made. "Look! I made a poopie!"

Good for you! Aren't you a big girl?! You entered a comment in an internet disucssion!

I'm not offended. I am amused. I am not sure what it is that was so clearly wrong to you.

I can see you are trying to break the thousand post mark before the weekend is over, so I will let you go about your business.

Anonymous wrote:Wow, you are way too heavily invested in this.

We both seem to be posting.

Anonymous wrote:I saw a number of posts about Clinton, including one accusation of rape, saw no clarification on how those cases ended, and so I commented.

...and quoted my post when doing so, which - you know - MIGHT give the impression that you were responding to me in particular, regarding my statements. As you did again when you called me dishonest when you were wrong on the facts.

Anonymous wrote:And several posts later you are due an apology?

None of us are due anything here. Many of us nonetheless try not to be sloppy and irresponsible.

Anonymous wrote:You called my point useless and wrong and accused me of some imaginary sin of jumping into the middle of a discussion.

It was undeniably wrong. Apparently your position is that if someone points out your wrongness, that's an offense to you, and once offended you will not correct your mistakes.

Anonymous wrote:If you want a properly threaded forum, go to one. Otherwise breathe deep and recite the DCUM credo. It's on the front page.

If you don't want someone to take your statements personally, then maybe you shouldn't direct them at individuals. You might also want to check your facts before calling someone a liar.

Wow, you are way too heavily invested in this. I saw a number of posts about Clinton, including one accusation of rape, saw no clarification on how those cases ended, and so I commented.

And several posts later you are due an apology? You called my point useless and wrong and accused me of some imaginary sin of jumping into the middle of a discussion. If you want a properly threaded forum, go to one. Otherwise breathe deep and recite the DCUM credo. It's on the front page.

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:I don't know what you're trying to accomplish here. And as far as your clarification goes, it was wrong (about charges being dropped), so your calling me dishonest was off-base. It has become very clear that you don't read very carefully.

It isn't useless if I am a supporter of Clinton who feels that he was being maligned.

Of course you were dead wrong here, and you called me dishonest as a result, and you apparently don't have the integrity to acknowledge that (and maybe even apologize) and move on.

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No you misread my earlier post. I wanted to clarify statements made about Clinton. I did not make a comparison to Cain. You drew that conclusion on your own.

What? I know you didn't! I didn't say you did. The PP who started this whole thing did. My whole complaint with you is that you jumped in the middle of an exchange with some useless (and wrong) side point.

I don't know what you're trying to accomplish here. And as far as your clarification goes, it was wrong (about charges being dropped), so your calling me dishonest was off-base. It has become very clear that you don't read very carefully.

It isn't useless if I am a supporter of Clinton who feels that he was being maligned.