(01-13-2012 08:20 PM)Rebel Wrote:  A black man was crucified, and you libs took joy in it. Tells me a lot.

C'mon, Rebel, surely you are not surprised at this. Right?

The truth is in today's allegedly enlightened society of 2012, it is STILL perfectly acceptable to lynch a black conservative by using the complicit media and a bunch of skanks who think they were harassed.

The liberals tried it with Clarence Thomas. It didn't work and the man RIGHTFULLY sits on the Supreme Court. They pulled it off with Cain, who was being too damn uppity and needed to be reminded of his place in the political/social pecking order.

Meanwhile, the libs have these stalwart citizens to boast about:
- Bawney Frank running a gay brothel out of his townhome
- Jesse "Shakedown" Jackson fathering a love child
- John Edwards having his love child with a woman while his wife is battling cancer and now facing possible prison time
- Clinton's bimbo eruptions during the 92 campaign and his impeachable offense of lying about the hummer from that chubby intern
- Weiner's twitter obsession with college coeds

(01-14-2012 09:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Cain was a miserable misogynist and he was rightfully exposed for that. He had no business being president.

You have no proof of that. On the other hand you know absolutely Clinton was/is. You tell us, did Clinton have any business being Pres?

Sorry, didn't mean to equate that Cain had no business being president because of his womanizing. He had no business being president because he is a political moron.

And Clinton was the same or worse with women, but he was the greatest president of our generation, so right or wrong it gets overlooked.

(01-14-2012 10:54 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And Clinton was the same or worse with women, but he was the greatest president of our generation, so right or wrong it gets overlooked.

So you were born in 1992 I take it?

(01-14-2012 10:54 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Sorry, didn't mean to equate that Cain had no business being president because of his womanizing. He had no business being president because he is a political moron.

And Clinton was the same or worse with women, but he was the greatest president of our generation, so right or wrong it gets overlooked.

So which is it, right or wrong? Also, take a shot at that question for someone with both a D and an R after their names.

(01-14-2012 11:02 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 10:54 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And Clinton was the same or worse with women, but he was the greatest president of our generation, so right or wrong it gets overlooked.

So you were born in 1992 I take it?

'66.

And no, sorry...Reagan was a lousy president.

(01-14-2012 11:11 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  '66

And no, sorry...Reagan was a lousy president.

So we can chalk this statement up to senility then.

(01-13-2012 04:52 PM)Rebel Wrote:  I don't watch Bill Maher.

I've NEVER watched Maher.... Why contaminate your mind and your tv.

I don't know how the dumb sob sleeps at night !!

BTW... REBEL... .you're sorely missed over on the U of M P-R forum ! !

(01-14-2012 11:11 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 11:02 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 10:54 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And Clinton was the same or worse with women, but he was the greatest president of our generation, so right or wrong it gets overlooked.

So you were born in 1992 I take it?

'66.

And no, sorry...Reagan was a lousy president.

Nuff said to this post ! !

(01-14-2012 10:54 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Sorry, didn't mean to equate that Cain had no business being president because of his womanizing. He had no business being president because he is a political moron.

And Clinton was the same or worse with women, but he was the greatest president of our generation, so right or wrong it gets overlooked.

You gotta be kidding me !! ! ! Not worth going any further down that road.

(01-13-2012 11:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-13-2012 11:08 PM)mtsufan561 Wrote:  

(01-13-2012 10:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-13-2012 09:27 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Come down from your cross.
What do you expect Cain's accusers to do? The statute of limitations has run on those that haven't been settled.

Write books. Continue to hammer him. He's a rich guy with a public image to maintain, they can certainly squeeze more money out of him by keeping the pressure on, statute or no statute. He's a public figure, so he can't really sue them.
The statute had expired before they said anything, so why did they say anything?
What has changed from two months ago, other than that the fact that now that he is no longer a candidate, he can't be hurt as much by the allegations?

"Why did they say anything?" My guess is that they didn't want to see a man who, in their minds, was a hypocrite and a liar with the possibility of taking a huge leadership role in the country (president).

If he was a hypocrite and a liar in their minds, then he was the same thing when he was a popular talk show host with a national (via the internet) following and making good money doing it. If their motives were as pure as you suggest, those motives would have applied to the situation he was in before he was a candidate. I'm going to be pretty cyncial about this until such time as somebody actually produces some third-party verification of either side's stories.

I think you're overstating Cain's popularity. The guy isn't that famous; he had his 15 minutes of fame on top of the polls and flamed out. 99% of America hadn't heard of him until then and I bet he'll be quickly forgotten.

Paula Jones accused a sitting two term president of sexual harassment and even she didn't get a book deal. What makes you think the Cain accusers can get a book deal? The best Paula Jones could do is appear on Celebrity Boxing and get KOed by Tonya Harding.

I agree with Tom that this was not about money (which some of them already got from settlements) but more about the fact you don't want to see the creep who felt up your skirt become leader of the free world.

Bill Maher's awesome. I just bought his New New Rules and this reminds me it's been too long since I've seen Religulous.

(01-14-2012 11:40 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I think you're overstating Cain's popularity. The guy isn't that famous; he had his 15 minutes of fame on top of the polls and flamed out. 99% of America hadn't heard of him until then and I bet he'll be quickly forgotten.
Paula Jones accused a sitting two term president of sexual harassment and even she didn't get a book deal. What makes you think the Cain accusers can get a book deal? The best Paula Jones could do is appear on Celebrity Boxing and get KOed by Tonya Harding.
I agree with Tom that this was not about money (which some of them already got from settlements) but more about the fact you don't want to see the creep who felt up your skirt become leader of the free world.
Bill Maher's awesome. I just bought his New New Rules and this reminds me it's been too long since I've seen Religulous.

We're obviously not going to find any common ground here. When some third party comes forward to corroborate either side's story, let me know. Until then, I don't see much point in pursuing this.

As far as "creeps feeling up skirts" and the like, you were obviously fine with Bill Clinton being leader of the free world. So was I, and I'd have been fine with Cain, too. At this point, the allegations against Clinton have more credibility than the ones against Cain. That would change if a disinterested party corroborates them. Let me know when that happens.

Bill Maher orally removes semen from monkey butts.

(01-14-2012 12:10 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Bill Maher orally removes semen from monkey butts.

Paul, I'm glad you kept it mild. I think Maher is a **** sucking maggot and he personifies liberals.

You owe it to yourselves to watch Christopher Hitches decimate Bill on his show. You could tell it hurt Bill's feelings since they are fellow atheists. But it was hysterical.

(01-14-2012 11:40 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Bill Maher's awesome.

Bill Maher is a jackasss.

Yes, the spelling is intentional. It gets it past the filter.

(01-14-2012 01:09 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  You owe it to yourselves to watch Christopher Hitches decimate Bill on his show. You could tell it hurt Bill's feelings since they are fellow atheists. But it was hysterical.

That's why I respected Christopher Hitchens. Dude just didnt give a sh!t who you were, he was going to call you out if you were wrong. He didn't have to agree with you if you were on the same "team".

(01-13-2012 08:20 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(01-13-2012 08:10 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  I'm gloating over the fact you were stupid enough to think he was a legitimate candidate when many of us told you at the time he never was. Had you been a bit more cordial about it at the time (or about any other subject for that matter) maybe I wouldn't get so much enjoyment out of it.

Aside from tonight, you were one of the liberals I HAVE been cordial with. ...and he WAS a legitimate candidate.

Now tell me, where are all these skanks? Hell, what Bialek said was actually a sexual assault, so, where is that b*tch?

I doubt there even were skanks.. like I said at the time, the GOP establishment was going to destroy him at all costs, and they did. Anyone could see that coming, maybe not the method, but the result certainly was obvious. GOP was never going to let him, Bachmann, Gingrich, etc.. have a chance. They would have lost in a landslide to Obama, and the establishment wasn't going to let that happen.

And to your next comment, how does race baiting even make sense here? The guy I'm voting for is also black.

(01-14-2012 12:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-14-2012 11:40 AM)Max Power Wrote:  I think you're overstating Cain's popularity. The guy isn't that famous; he had his 15 minutes of fame on top of the polls and flamed out. 99% of America hadn't heard of him until then and I bet he'll be quickly forgotten.
Paula Jones accused a sitting two term president of sexual harassment and even she didn't get a book deal. What makes you think the Cain accusers can get a book deal? The best Paula Jones could do is appear on Celebrity Boxing and get KOed by Tonya Harding.
I agree with Tom that this was not about money (which some of them already got from settlements) but more about the fact you don't want to see the creep who felt up your skirt become leader of the free world.
Bill Maher's awesome. I just bought his New New Rules and this reminds me it's been too long since I've seen Religulous.

We're obviously not going to find any common ground here. When some third party comes forward to corroborate either side's story, let me know. Until then, I don't see much point in pursuing this.

As far as "creeps feeling up skirts" and the like, you were obviously fine with Bill Clinton being leader of the free world. So was I, and I'd have been fine with Cain, too. At this point, the allegations against Clinton have more credibility than the ones against Cain. That would change if a disinterested party corroborates them. Let me know when that happens.

Most sexual harassment takes place in private, so demanding corroboration is a near impossible standard in most cases. Unless there's a blue dress.

Why does Paula Jones' accusation have more credibility?

Personally, I don't care that much. I was only responding to the remark that Cain's accusers must be lying because they're not milking him (which BTW might actually be indicative of their truthfulness, but I digress). I just didn't like Cain because his tax plan was terribly regressive and he seemed to know next to nothing about foreign policy and actually spun that ignorance as a positive. The unfaithfulness just hurts you with the sanctimonious GOP family values crowd--he's just in the wrong party (though considering the extent they're embracing Gingrich maybe not).

Hitchens didn't decimate anything, except his liver. I think I'm going to watch Religulous tonight instead of the Broncos game.