Another, "I didn't do it!"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Or to show she has a pattern of not being a credible person.

There has been nothing to show that. All you have shown is someone made an accusation against her. The very same thing you are saying is so wrong to do to Herman Cain.

Can you show me anything that proves that she made false accusations of sexual harrassment against a former boss in the past? If not, then you have nothing related to her credibility in this situation.
 
There has been nothing to show that. All you have shown is someone made an accusation against her. The very same thing you are saying is so wrong to do to Herman Cain.

Wrong, I have court records. Which have been linked showing bankruptcies, tax liens and civil suits. Where is the link that supports your claim that "formal charges" were filed against Cain?


Can you show me anything that proves that she made false accusations of sexual harrassment against a former boss in the past? If not, then you have nothing related to her credibility in this situation.


Is she telling the truth about Cain? Nobody knows. But we do know her history..... all we can do now is consider the source until actual proof is provided. Otherwise all we have is he said/she said.
 
Wrong, I have court records. Which have been linked showing bankruptcies, tax liens and civil suits. Where is the link that supports your claim that "formal charges" were filed against Cain?





Is she telling the truth about Cain? Nobody knows. But we do know her history..... all we can do now is consider the source until actual proof is provided. Otherwise all we have is he said/she said.

None of that has anything to do with whether Cain behaved in a sexually innappropriate way toward her. In fact, those are totally unrelated situations. Just an attempt to cast dispersions; better known as blame the victim. "She has to be lying. She declared bankruptcy!" Completely illogical and an underhanded tactic to take the focus off the real issue.
 
You mean the numbers that are a carry over from a couple of terms ago?

But none of that has anything to do with Herman Cain being accused of sexually innappropriate behavior toward not 1, not 2, not 3, but 4 women.

I can actually tell you who predicted that Obama's stimilus plan would fail and unemployment would increase (and that prediction was 2009) but you want to continue flinging poo at the guy.

Sorry, but I cannot join you as you are tying another noose in a rope to hang him.
 
I can actually tell you who predicted that Obama's stimilus plan would fail and unemployment would increase (and that prediction was 2009) but you want to continue flinging poo at the guy.

Sorry, but I cannot join you as you are tying another noose in a rope to hang him.

Obama doesn't have anything to do with 4 women accusing Herman Cain of sexually innappropriate behavior. Can you try to stick to the topic. You are free to create an Obama bashing thread on your own. This is about Herman Cain being accused of sexually innappropriate behavior in relationship to not 1, not 2, not 3, but 4 different women.
 
If this is an economic ‘jolt,’ then red is the new green
October 25, 2009
By Herman Cain
Christina Romer, the chairperson of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, said Thursday that the $194 billion already spent from the $787 billion economic stimulus gave a jolt to the economy that contributed to growth in the second and third quarters of the year.

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the first, second and third quarters of 2009, respectively, were negative 1.9 percent, negative 3.3 percent and negative 3.8 percent. It looks like economic growth got increasingly worse each quarter.

Maybe I am missing something, but this does not look like a jolt to the economy.

Romer also told that same congressional panel that, by the middle of next year, the impact of the stimulus will level off. In other words, what we have seen so far is as good as it is going to get.

She went on to say that spending so far has saved or created 600,000 to 1.5 million jobs, but warned that unemployment will remain high, above 9.5 percent, through the end of 2010. She’s right. By the way, the administration said we needed the stimulus bill passed to keep the unemployment rate under 8 percent.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports show that 2.7 million jobs have been lost since the stimulus was passed, reflecting the fact that 49 out of 50 states lost jobs during that period.

The 9.8 percent of the workforce (15 million workers) that are unemployed really do not care about imaginary “saved jobs” because they were not among them.

I know it is not politically correct to ask this question, but, how do you measure “saved jobs”? I must have missed that class when I was a mathematics Major in college. Shame on me.

The phrase “the economy, stupid” has become popularized over the last two decades. It still is all about the economy, and the administration is not being honest with the American people.

Their policies to stimulate the economy simply are not working!

So they continue to distract the public with ineffective economic crumbs like Cash for Clunkers, first-time home buyers’ tax credits filled with fraud and abuse, and a $250 bonus to senior citizens on Social Security that wasn’t legally required, and that seniors didn’t even ask for. They know this country is headed for bankruptcy.

With a national debt of $12 trillion and a 2009 national debt ceiling of $12.1 trillion, Congress will need some more breathing room for its spending habits. Since it is a Democrat-controlled Congress with a Democratic president, they will probably authorize an increase over a beer when we are not looking.

It appears that, to this administration and Congress, down is the new up and red is the new green. When businesses and families have more money going out than coming in, we call that “in the red” from traditional accounting lingo. We can’t raise the debt limit on ourselves and sell the debt to foreigners, nor can we pass a tax increase on to anybody at will.

Not only does this administration and Congress deny that we can count or read. They now believe that we the people are color blind.

Red is red and we are not stupid.

As Herman Cain is running for President, it has everything to do with the upcoming debate. I can assure you, these allegations will be mentioned as a diversionary tactic from the real issues at hand.
 
As Herman Cain is running for President, it has everything to do with the upcoming debate. I can assure you, these allegations will be mentioned as a diversionary tactic from the real issues at hand.

It has virtually nothing to do with the topic of this thread. I will tell you again: you are free to go create a bash Obama thread on your own. This thread is devoted to the topic of innappropriate behavior in the form of sexual harrassment as applied to Herman Cain.

Stop trolling this thread with your Obama hatred and nonsense. Stick to the topic or I will begin reporting your posts as trolling.
 
None of that has anything to do with whether Cain behaved in a sexually innappropriate way toward her. In fact, those are totally unrelated situations. Just an attempt to cast dispersions; better known as blame the victim. "She has to be lying. She declared bankruptcy!" Completely illogical and an underhanded tactic to take the focus off the real issue.

But it's not clear who the victim is yet. Perhaps Cain is the victim of a smear campaign. We won't know until there is evidence.

Without evidence we have she said/he said. And based on her history she doesn't look very credible. It's that simple.

And again, what are the case numbers for the formal charges that were filed? It might be helpful to look at those.
 
But it's not clear who the victim is yet. Perhaps Cain is the victim of a smear campaign. We won't know until there is evidence.

Without evidence we have she said/he said. And based on her history she doesn't look very credible. It's that simple.

And again, what are the case numbers for the formal charges that were filed? It might be helpful to look at those.

The point is that you are automatically looking for some unnconnected reasons not to believe her. And, at the same time, you automatically give Cain benefit of the doubt.

Nothing you have brought up has anything to do with this situation. You are pulling random things up as an excuse not to believe a woman who claims to have been sexually harrassed.
 
One only questions the victim's credibility to show cause to blame the victim. Particularly when it comes to a woman making any kind of sexual misconduct claim against a male.
No. One always questions the credibility of an alleged victim or witness in order to assign weight to the facts as stated. That doesn't mean "blame the victim." In the case of credibility, one must first establish that there is even a wrong committed and a victim involved. If a wrong has been committed, and a victim is involved, then the victim is just that, a victim. There is no reason to blame a victim for what a perpetrator does.
 
No. One always questions the credibility of an alleged victim or witness in order to assign weight to the facts as stated. That doesn't mean "blame the victim." In the case of credibility, one must first establish that there is even a wrong committed and a victim involved. If a wrong has been committed, and a victim is involved, then the victim is just that, a victim. There is no reason to blame a victim for what a perpetrator does.

Only people of a certain mindset always question the credibility of the victim. If one feels the need to question her credibility in this particular instance, one needs to find something in her background that is applicable. Declaring bankruptcy certainly isn't.
 
How can you judge whether someone is being truthful in a specific situation based on something they did in a totally unrelated situation?
It's done in courtrooms all the time.
 
It's done in courtrooms all the time.

That doesn't make it right.

Yes, it is done by defense attorneys who are attempting to distract from their client's culpability. Underhanded and manipulative. Totally disgusting.
 
The point is that you are automatically looking for some unnconnected reasons not to believe her. And, at the same time, you automatically give Cain benefit of the doubt.

Nothing you have brought up has anything to do with this situation. You are pulling random things up as an excuse not to believe a woman who claims to have been sexually harrassed.

When someone asks you to believe them, it is reasonable to consider whether or not they were credible in the past. She is making claims against a man running for President. Of course people are going to question her credibility.
 
When someone asks you to believe them, it is reasonable to consider whether or not they were credible in the past. She is making claims against a man running for President. Of course people are going to question her credibility.

So you automatically assume that because he is a man running for the Repub candidacy, he is credible, but because she made an accusation against him, she isn't crediible. :cool2: Some people don't question her credibility until there is reason to do so. Why is it that she is not assumed to have credibility until proven otherwise just as Cain is? And declaring bankruptcy does not speak to her credibility in beeing honest regarding an event that was sexually innappropriate.

You questioned the credibility of the two women who filed formal complaints and were paid hush money, as well. The fact is, you are assuming that Cain is innocent, and all 4 of these women are lying. Why would you be so quick to assume the women are lying and the man isn't?

BTW, he isn't running for President yet.
 
Only people of a certain mindset always question the credibility of the victim....
Not just the credibility of the victim but the credibility of all witnesses, forensic evidence, and the defendant.

Those people are called critical thinkers.
 
Not just the credibility of the victim but the credibility of all witnesses, forensic evidence, and the defendant.

Those people are called critical thinkers.

No, those people are called "lawyers". They have a motive. It is to win their case.
 
That doesn't make it right.

Yes, it is done by defense attorneys who are attempting to distract from their client's culpability. Underhanded and manipulative. Totally disgusting.
Not just defense attorneys, and not for distraction. If a witness to an event is not credible, then that's an important factor to be considered.

Do you consider getting to the truth to be underhanded and manipulative?
 
Not just defense attorneys, and not for distraction. If a witness to an event is not credible, then that's an important factor to be considered.

Do you consider getting to the truth to be underhanded and manipulative?

Distraction. Witnesses do not come into play in this case. This is the case of a man being accused of sexual harrassment by 4 women, and the assumption that their credibility needs to be questioned while his doesn't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top