AlpineK Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 ~ sigh ~ Â Remember the Alamo! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Well, I might agree with his quote that "stupid people are ruining America" but I'll wager we have different folks in mind. Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 So none of you guys figure Cain is getting swiftboated by the other Repubs? all of these women are legit, none are character assassins hired/prepared/bankrolled by another Repub? Â Wouldn't matter either way to most of us. Does it change the way he would be as President as it relates to getting the job done? Anyway, I think we all are in acceptance mode after the parade of Clinton accusers. But so what? If you go back the last century (or perhaps all the way back, this isn't a recent phenomenon) and look at Presidents who had extramarital affairs and tossed out the ones who did, who would be left to run the country? At the end of the day you want to know if the guy could do the job, not do the aid or the maid. Hell, they'll probably all be doing the aid and the maid. Â "Sally who?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Swiftboating was a lie. At least some of Cain's 'accusers' appear to be legit. Â Either way, the man is an utter buffoon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 So none of you guys figure Cain is getting swiftboated by the other Repubs? all of these women are legit, none are character assassins hired/prepared/bankrolled by another Repub? Â Wouldn't matter either way to most of us. Does it change the way he would be as President as it relates to getting the job done? Anyway, I think we all are in acceptance mode after the parade of Clinton accusers. But so what? If you go back the last century (or perhaps all the way back, this isn't a recent phenomenon) and look at Presidents who had extramarital affairs and tossed out the ones who did, who would be left to run the country? At the end of the day you want to know if the guy could do the job, not do the aid or the maid. Hell, they'll probably all be doing the aid and the maid. Â "Sally who?" Â Do you think old Tom asked, "you want a job, don't you?" before raping his slaves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 I don't know about that, I wasn't there. Do you think that maybe Jefferson lost to John Adams because there was a whispering campaign (which was of course not published in the newz at the time) about this taboo subject? Then, later, realizing they'd been "Swiftboated" and long after the John Adams audacity of hope sthick had gotten old, no one cared and they voted for Jefferson anyway? He was a nice guy ya know. Â Hmmmmm "REVISIONIST AT WORK!". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Just a guess, but I'd figure what was acceptable for males in positions of power in 17whatever is different than these times. In 17whatever the whole Clinton thing wouldn't have made it into circulation. Â Trying to compare Clinton to Cain? Cain fucked 5,000 employees and Clinton? Hard to say but I bet Cain's got him beat by a couple miles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Who cares if Cain leaves? Newt is picking up the slack! Â http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57335118-503544/newt-gingrich-poor-kids-dont-work-unless-its-illegal After saying recently that child labor laws are "truly stupid," Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich on Thursday told an Iowa audience that children in poor neighborhoods have "no habits of working" nor getting paid for their endeavors "unless it's illegal." Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Who cares if Cain leaves? Newt is picking up the slack! http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57335118-503544/newt-gingrich-poor-kids-dont-work-unless-its-illegal After saying recently that child labor laws are "truly stupid," Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich on Thursday told an Iowa audience that children in poor neighborhoods have "no habits of working" nor getting paid for their endeavors "unless it's illegal."  sounds like the most logical solution for them poor folks then is to make all work illegal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Also at the event, he became the second GOP presidential candidate to sign a pledge declaring support for the construction of a fence along the entire U.S. border with Mexico by the end of 2013. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., has also signed the document by a group called Americans for Securing the Borders. Â I have goats, and I assure you there is nothing reliably secure about a fence. I wonder who'll get the contract to build the thousands of miles of useless fence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobo Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Halliburton! Oh wait, that was the last administration... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Koch Fence Division Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 I dunno who it will be or under which administration, but I'll wager the contractor wears a black hat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordansahls Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 (edited) Just a guess, but I'd figure what was acceptable for males in positions of power in 17whatever is different than these times. Â Thomas Jefferson accused John Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman" Â John adams replied by calling Thomas Jefferson a "mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father" Â I wonder how well these phrases would fly today? Edited December 2, 2011 by jordansahls Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobo Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 I wonder how well these phrases would fly today? Not very, I would guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 A quick read up on any Aaron Burr or Alexander Hamilton literature would remind us that they often played for keeps back then. Serious and critically important business. Â And they felt, worth dying for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 (edited) Try a slow read. Hamilton and Burr had a long history of insulting each other. I wouldn't exactly call it 'critically important business'. Burr didn't exactly shoot Hamilton over the wording of the second amendment or anything. It was pure tit for tat, pretty much like a decades long j_b/kkk exchange, only with more flowery language. Burr was an infamous dead beat, debtor, and womanizer, and Hamilton extremely pompous, so the two naturally got along famously and found plenty of ammunition with which to cement that friendship. Â "Founding Brothers" posits that Burr never meant to shoot Hamilton at all (calculating, correctly as it turned out, that the political costs of doing so were far too great. They were.) but meant to raise his gone and miss instead. Unfortunately for both, Burr seems to have been such a bad shot that he hit Hamilton while trying to miss him. We know from Hamilton's statements prior to the duel that he never intended to fire at Burr. Â Your "See Spot Run" version of history, where these few saintly, infinitely wise Men labored together, side by side, until after the lamp oil ran out to birth to our Freedom isn't nearly as interesting as the real thing. Â Â Edited December 2, 2011 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Slow readers like yourself should have also caught that Burr took his sweet time aiming, and as he was a good shot, clearly meant to kill Hamilton. Â Hamilton had earlier confessed to an affair, proving himself no better: or worse, than Cain in that regard. Â Here's another one you c...a...n... R...e...a...d.... S...L....O...W...L...Y... (talking slow so that some of the underachieving artists around here can follow the bouncing ball). Andrew Jackson, who had killed a man in a questionable duel for insulting his wife (as she was technically still married to another when they wed- Jackson, it was claimed, had been having an affair with a married woman) still got elected President afterwards. Â Hope that was slow enough for some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 He'll bow out over the weekend. Slow news cycle and all. seems like you're set to be the big weiner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Speaking of reading slowly....? Â Read this VERY slowly. Â A white woman comes forward to accuse a black man running for political office of sexual misconduct, and, without any analysis of the white woman's past, background, or, most importantly, connection to other candidates for the contested political office, the left and right are both happy to state "That black guy is unfit for office?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobo Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Yup, you seem to have captured it right there... Tried and convicted in the Court of Public Opinion. That's how it's done here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 'Kinda makes you wonder why God told ol' Herman that He wanted him to run for president. Maybe it was a trap. Â Probably a lesson in humility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 Speaking of reading slowly....? Read this VERY slowly.  A white woman comes forward to accuse a black man running for political office of sexual misconduct, and, without any analysis of the white woman's past, background, or, most importantly, connection to other candidates for the contested political office, the left and right are both happy to state "That black guy is unfit for office?" I read it slow:-) But I thought I explained it up thread. The wannabe President black guy doing white women or not doesn't affect fitness for office. We are so use to seeing politicians having affairs that it's really just one more. Since all the others Pols claimed innocence but were guilty, should we now go "Oh, all these women with these sex charges must be lying bitches despite the last 15 times we saw this near exact thing with white politicians it was true"? No, we just roll our eyes and say "Oh, one more". It's just more grist for the media mill. Like Gary Hart or Bill Clinton's campaigns. Notice that most folks figure the voluminous charges against Clinton were true and they voted for him anyway.  Here's one for you all, why does the black guy who is the President get a free pass on gay sex charges? http://www.larrysinclair.org/about/  Why is the media all over Cain and not Obama? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted December 2, 2011 Share Posted December 2, 2011 (edited) Speaking of reading slowly....? Read this VERY slowly.  A white woman comes forward to accuse a black man running for political office of sexual misconduct, and, without any analysis of the white woman's past, background, or, most importantly, connection to other candidates for the contested political office, the left and right are both happy to state "That black guy is unfit for office?"  Accurately characterizing a situation isn't exactly your strong suit, so...  ...3 women accusers, two undisputed sexual harrassment settlements totalling nearly $100K, and a 13 year affair into which he put a substantial amount of money. His wife didn't even know 'they were friends'.  The public has concluded, correctly IMO, that Cain may have a bit of a lying problem. He simply stinks too much to take a chance on as president.  That's on top of the fact that his proposals are so idiotic as to be cartoonish. The man is obviously a buffoon.  Edited December 2, 2011 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.