Recent Posts
- IRS Docs Show “BOLO” for Tea Party Groups: Docs “Didn’t Exist” for FOIA Request, But Did for IG Audit
- Life Under ObamaCare
- DailyMail(UK): Marines Break Code So Obama Doesn’t Get Wet (He’s Already “Washed Up”)
- Obama Makes Conservative’s Case Even Better that Conservative Do
- IRS Targets Conservatives: Is this the Tip of the Iceberg?
JAMES on Twitter
- @BretBaier @Salerno_Thomas THEY can't "unchain him" for fear he will make a gaffe and tell the TRUTH!! 1 day ago
- RT @MarineReconDad: @BradThor There's more of us than them.... but don't forget about all the new toys the DHS has purchased, just for a da… 1 day ago
- RT @naizer: @BradThor Finally - someone make sense! How about we march on D.C. and rip up our 1040's in front of the IRS office! 1 day ago
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 2, 2011 at 1:15 pm
Interested Bystander
Hey All,
I haven’t seen a thread on the Herman Cain sexual harrassment allegations, but here’s a good piece on how sexual harrassment incidents are handled in 97% of the cases:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/facts_are_optional_MGlu78c7RflvWKMH5eUuvM
I find it amazing that even BEFORE the evidence is in, Cain is guilty simply because he is a man. It really is that simple, because IF a woman even suggests something “happened”, then it happened, pay her and get her to sign the paper to shut her up.
November 2, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Interested Bystander
Hey All,
Now to give some time to the “other side”, here’s an article that pretty much suggests that Cain can’t be President because he was ACCUSED of harrassing two women back 12 years ago:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/11/01/let_herman_be_gone_111892.html
I’d really like to break this article down, but I haven’t got the time too.
The bottom line is that it is DISGUSTING the way the media handles allegations made about someone on the left comapred to how they handle allegations made about someone on the right.
Indoctrination comes to mind.
Let me take the time to address this paragraph from the linked article:
“He needs to answer more questions about the alleged harassment. Beyond his categorical denial of wrongdoing, he could call on the National Restaurant Association to relax its confidentiality rules and release records of the two cases — perhaps with names redacted — so voters can come to their own conclusions. Cain said Monday he would not request such action. Why not release as much information as possible, if that will put the issue to rest?”
First of all, WHY should Cain answer more questions when he has denied any wrongdoing? How is denying the allegations NOT answering ALL questions that need to be asked? IF and when more evidence arises (which I really doubt will happen, but I will predict that this will follow Cain to the election if he is the nominee becaue EVERY story will be reported with the “the candidate was accused of sexual harrassment” moniker), should Cain address the NEW evidence.
Why should Cain be the one who asks the NRA to “relax the rules”? Are they trying to get Cain to do their job for them? Doesn’t Cain get afforded his Fifth Amendment right from self incrimination? Not suggesting ANYTHING that these women allege even happened, only suggesting that you don’t ask a driver if they have ever sped while driving on the Interstate.
And then the author suggests that the evidence could be released with “names redacted”.
This is the MOST ridiculous thing in the whole article, in my opinion. These women ACCUSED Cain of something, and then they get to remain “redacted” from being disclosed? Maybe these women have a history of this type of accusation. What happened to the RIGHT to confront your accuser? Why should the people who are the ACCUSER be given the ability to remain “redacted”, but the person who the allegation is made against have to stand in the spotlight?
And then the author suggests that “voters can come to their own conclusions” when we DO NOT have information on the ACCUSERS.
As far as I’m concerned Cain has released all of the information needed to address these ALLEGATIONS. He denied them, and until someone comes up with someone who has more information, and REAL evidence that the incidents actually happened, then that’s good enough for me.
How many ways can you say
“I was accused, and I deny that anything happened”???
As far as I’m concerned, until someone comes up with something more than a lawyer saying that it happened, and Cain denying that it happened, I’m inclined to come down on the side of Cain.
See, now I’m late………………gotta go.
November 2, 2011 at 4:17 pm
JAMES
I seem to recall Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers giving lurid details in the 1992 campaign, and the man who REALLY COMMITTED ACTUAL SEXUAL ASSAULT was elected TWICE. How funny that no one has made that correlation.