Herman Cain is on the show.

Is he gonna talk about Pokemon again?

Does he have another book?

I don't watch Bill Maher.

Those were the days.. when Reb thought Hermain Cain actually had any interest in running for president. Hilarious.

(01-13-2012 06:11 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Those were the days.. when Reb thought Hermain Cain actually had any interest in running for president. Hilarious.

He did, he was destroyed, for nothing. By the way, where are all these skank b*tches today? This should tell you that conservatives have morals. A Democrat like Clinton? Oh, he can rape women and his approval rating will increase. You libs are vile creatures. Herman did not a damn thing and you're gloating over it. Do me a favor, suck on some cyanide, 84.

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.

He was very legitimate. He is out now over non events.

(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?

A black man was crucified, and you libs took joy in it. Tells me a lot.

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

If libs were religious they'd be offended of your using "crucified" just like Bush couldn't say crusade, and Imus can't say nappy.

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.

(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?

(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).

(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.

(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 don't mean to suggest their motives were pure by any means. I've got no idea whether they were really telling the truth or not. It's a mystery, and I too would like to see some real verification.

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

Why are you injecting race into it? Newt Gingrich was crucified too in much the same way. Last I checked that murph was white.

I can't stand Maher. He's just as self-righteous and 10x as snarky as Beck. I hate those types of people.

(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?

Simple.

Like I told you. Everything isn't about the damned almighty dollar like you cons think it is.

Cain was a miserable misogynist and he was rightfully exposed for that. He had no business being president.

And it's pretty evident that Cain had no intentions of ever being president by his lack of any sort of campaign operations.

(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.

And you base this on what exactly? The unsubstantiated accusations of a few women, some of which were close to the democratic machine and some that had a history of making such accusations other than Cain?

The thing that makes you jump to the conclusion that Cain is a "miserable misogynist" is the same one that kept you convinced Bill Clinton wasn't.