STOP defending Cain he is a clear womanizer

[Ravi]

And you think this is a good thing?

Republicans have a standard where they admit they occassional fall short. As we all do. But they have a standard.

Democrats. Heck, bang that intern, run a gay brothel out of your apartment, send pictures of your junk to girls... it's all good. We're not here to preach morality.

Newt, while having an affair, went after Clinton for having an affair.

That's the guy you support and these affairs don't matter to you unless a Democrat is having them.

Delicious.

No, Newt while having an affair went after Clinton for lying in a civil case, suborning perjury, obstructing justice and abusing his office.

I also think that there is a difference between a Newt, who simply had relationships that failed (as a lot of us do) and Clinton, who was pretty clearly had some serious impulse control problems.

Gonna let you in on a little secret about men, Ravi. If you are halfway attractive, most of us are thinking about sex when we feign interest in whatever you are talking about.

But that's ALL most men do. We practice impulse control because we enjoy staying employed and married.

Except Bill Clinton, whose behavior was so bad that Leon Panetta had to take measure to make sure a woman was never alone in a car with him. The guy pretty seriously had a problem. For every woman we heard about, there were probably ten we didn't.

You are describing Newt to a tee. Poor impulse control. And you excuse him by saying he "simply had relationships that failed."

Keep it up, you are making me laugh.

 

[Stephanie]

Democrats, however, don't claim to live in the moral high ground like Republicans do.

What moral high ground has any Republican claim that democrats aren't supposed to have the same standard?

All republicans do is claim moral superiority, starting with their reliance on the bible. That pretty much alone makes the self-proclaimed moralists.

oh brother..

 

[newpolitics]

What moral high ground has any Republican claim that democrats aren't supposed to have the same standard?

All republicans do is claim moral superiority, starting with their reliance on the bible. That pretty much alone makes the self-proclaimed moralists.

oh brother..

your rolling your eyes?? you have no idea.

 

[JoeB131]

You are describing Newt to a tee. Poor impulse control. And you excuse him by saying he "simply had relationships that failed."

Keep it up, you are making me laugh.

Do you have a story about Newt dropping his pants and asking a woman he just met for oral sex?

You know, like Clinton did to Paula Jones?

Look, Clinton's own people admitted he had a problem. Incidently, I think Cain has a similar problem.

 

[Seawytch]

You are describing Newt to a tee. Poor impulse control. And you excuse him by saying he "simply had relationships that failed."

Keep it up, you are making me laugh.

Do you have a story about Newt dropping his pants and asking a woman he just met for oral sex?

You know, like Clinton did to Paula Jones?

Look, Clinton's own people admitted he had a problem. Incidently, I think Cain has a similar problem.

No...no stories like that about Newt...but there are plenty others...(like being run out of Congress, cheating on his wives and his excuse for it...patriotism).

Please, oh please, let Newtie be the nominee...

 

[Flaylo]

I'm talking about the other GOP candidates. What good would it do? Plenty.

A call to arms by candidate X to Republicans everywhere to not tolerate such a deceitful and disgraceful figure. A call for the GOP to actually "walk the walk" about family values which was supposedly one of the cornerstones of their party that separates them from the Democrats who are pro-choice, pro gay marriage, anti-family, etc... and all of the other nonsense you guys spill all the time.



My post was about other candidates.

Your response was that basically, "he's finished, just let him die"

My response was that if you feel X about him, you should say X about him. In this case where there was apparent fraud, lies told to cover up the truth, and repeated infractions of....shit....human decency....I think it is your obligation to say something if you're seeking the party's nomination. YOU--Grandpa--did that. Kudos. But I'm talking about the other candidates, not you.

Thanks for the spirited debate. But I disagree that because he's roadkill, you should just hold your tongue.

Then they'd have to do the same to Newt. These guys will never dis someone in their own party as there is always the chance the person they dis will select them as VP or award them with a cabinet position.

Republican moral values are only used against Democrats.

What an idiot, Republicans aren't the only ones that do this democrats are just as bad. Democrats might even be worse because they accuse without proof.

Quit being an ass, your statement is half true, both parties fuck up with their lapses in morality but Dems don't proclaim themselves to be party of Christian and religious morals and values.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Democrats, however, don't claim to live in the moral high ground like Republicans do.

What moral high ground has any Republican claim that democrats aren't supposed to have the same standard?

All republicans do is claim moral superiority, starting with their reliance on the bible. That pretty much alone makes the self-proclaimed moralists.

So what you are saying is that no democrat are Christians?

 

[Stephanie]

You are describing Newt to a tee. Poor impulse control. And you excuse him by saying he "simply had relationships that failed."

Keep it up, you are making me laugh.

Do you have a story about Newt dropping his pants and asking a woman he just met for oral sex?

You know, like Clinton did to Paula Jones?

Look, Clinton's own people admitted he had a problem. Incidently, I think Cain has a similar problem.

No...no stories like that about Newt...but there are plenty others...(like being run out of Congress, cheating on his wives and his excuse for it...patriotism).

Please, oh please, let Newtie be the nominee...

yeah because gawd forbid the Democrats have to try and run on their record..

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Then they'd have to do the same to Newt. These guys will never dis someone in their own party as there is always the chance the person they dis will select them as VP or award them with a cabinet position.

Republican moral values are only used against Democrats.

What an idiot, Republicans aren't the only ones that do this democrats are just as bad. Democrats might even be worse because they accuse without proof.

Quit being an ass, your statement is half true, both parties fuck up with their lapses in morality but Dems don't proclaim themselves to be party of Christian and religious morals and values.

Fuck off bitch, I will stop being an ass to you when you stop being a fucking moron liberal lying hack

 

[JoeB131]

You are describing Newt to a tee. Poor impulse control. And you excuse him by saying he "simply had relationships that failed."

Keep it up, you are making me laugh.

Do you have a story about Newt dropping his pants and asking a woman he just met for oral sex?

You know, like Clinton did to Paula Jones?

Look, Clinton's own people admitted he had a problem. Incidently, I think Cain has a similar problem.

No...no stories like that about Newt...but there are plenty others...(like being run out of Congress, cheating on his wives and his excuse for it...patriotism).

Please, oh please, let Newtie be the nominee...

Regardless of Newt's problems, you guys still have to run on the Community Organizer's record.

Or lack thereof...

 

[Flaylo]

What an idiot, Republicans aren't the only ones that do this democrats are just as bad. Democrats might even be worse because they accuse without proof.

Quit being an ass, your statement is half true, both parties fuck up with their lapses in morality but Dems don't proclaim themselves to be party of Christian and religious morals and values.

Fuck off bitch, I will stop being an ass to you when you stop being a fucking moron liberal lying hack

You admit being an ass, I already knew that but thanks for confirming it and my post was true, you Repugs wear your religious morals and values on your sleeves and even block legislation for others based on it but have no problem trashing for a little secret hanky panky on the side.

 

[Ravi]

You are describing Newt to a tee. Poor impulse control. And you excuse him by saying he "simply had relationships that failed."

Keep it up, you are making me laugh.

Do you have a story about Newt dropping his pants and asking a woman he just met for oral sex?

You know, like Clinton did to Paula Jones?

Look, Clinton's own people admitted he had a problem. Incidently, I think Cain has a similar problem.

You're still doing it....excusing Newt's behavior.

Delicious.

 

[Seawytch]

Do you have a story about Newt dropping his pants and asking a woman he just met for oral sex?

You know, like Clinton did to Paula Jones?

Look, Clinton's own people admitted he had a problem. Incidently, I think Cain has a similar problem.

No...no stories like that about Newt...but there are plenty others...(like being run out of Congress, cheating on his wives and his excuse for it...patriotism).

Please, oh please, let Newtie be the nominee...

Regardless of Newt's problems, you guys still have to run on the Community Organizer's record.

Or lack thereof...

I'm fine with that. His record is pretty damn good, actually...

What the Fuck Has Obama Done So Far?

 

[Vaard]

I'm talking about the other GOP candidates. What good would it do? Plenty.

A call to arms by candidate X to Republicans everywhere to not tolerate such a deceitful and disgraceful figure. A call for the GOP to actually "walk the walk" about family values which was supposedly one of the cornerstones of their party that separates them from the Democrats who are pro-choice, pro gay marriage, anti-family, etc... and all of the other nonsense you guys spill all the time.



My post was about other candidates.

Your response was that basically, "he's finished, just let him die"

My response was that if you feel X about him, you should say X about him. In this case where there was apparent fraud, lies told to cover up the truth, and repeated infractions of....shit....human decency....I think it is your obligation to say something if you're seeking the party's nomination. YOU--Grandpa--did that. Kudos. But I'm talking about the other candidates, not you.

Thanks for the spirited debate. But I disagree that because he's roadkill, you should just hold your tongue.

Then they'd have to do the same to Newt. These guys will never dis someone in their own party as there is always the chance the person they dis will select them as VP or award them with a cabinet position.

Republican moral values are only used against Democrats.

What an idiot, Republicans aren't the only ones that do this democrats are just as bad. Democrats might even be worse because they accuse without proof.

would you be more likely or less likely to vote for john mccain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?

 

[Jackson]

You are describing Newt to a tee. Poor impulse control. And you excuse him by saying he "simply had relationships that failed."

Keep it up, you are making me laugh.

Do you have a story about Newt dropping his pants and asking a woman he just met for oral sex?

You know, like Clinton did to Paula Jones?

Look, Clinton's own people admitted he had a problem. Incidently, I think Cain has a similar problem.

You're still doing it....excusing Newt's behavior.

Delicious.

Yes, many men have the same problems when it comes to their ego vs the zipper. But the important issue was demonstrated when we experienced Clinton's experience as a leader. Although he had the morals of a pimp, he was a good president.

So excusing the behavior is not at issue but what they brng to the table as a leader and a forward thinking person.

 

[MarcATL]

It doesn't even matter if these allegations true. He is a complete joke even without them. The only thing he is able to tout as a candidate is his 999 plan, and even that would cause more harm than good. He is incredibly ignorant in regards to presidential duties, especially when it comes to foreign policy.

Well, as true as that may be, the relevant issues are besides the point at this time.

 

[MarcATL]

Yea look positive on the whole thing.. he might be fondling women and so on.. but at least it is women and not boys and young men in bathrooms!

LOL!!! It's a damn shame that it has to come to this with the Republicans.

Hey nitwit I stopped supporting Cain just before he peaked in the polls. Clinton is not a part of this discussion either. You seem just like the type to rub salt in a wound that isn't healing. He is done, get it? Finished. What good for me or anyone else comes from kicking him now? Do tell.... Please.

I'm talking about the other GOP candidates. What good would it do? Plenty.

A call to arms by candidate X to Republicans everywhere to not tolerate such a deceitful and disgraceful figure. A call for the GOP to actually "walk the walk" about family values which was supposedly one of the cornerstones of their party that separates them from the Democrats who are pro-choice, pro gay marriage, anti-family, etc... and all of the other nonsense you guys spill all the time.

My support or lack there of ended long before this shit broke. I defended him until the answer became obvious. But your persistence proves the premise of my op. Thanks for that if nothing else.

My post was about other candidates.

Your response was that basically, "he's finished, just let him die"

My response was that if you feel X about him, you should say X about him. In this case where there was apparent fraud, lies told to cover up the truth, and repeated infractions of....shit....human decency....I think it is your obligation to say something if you're seeking the party's nomination. YOU--Grandpa--did that. Kudos. But I'm talking about the other candidates, not you.

Thanks for the spirited debate. But I disagree that because he's roadkill, you should just hold your tongue.

Then they'd have to do the same to Newt. These guys will never dis someone in their own party as there is always the chance the person they dis will select them as VP or award them with a cabinet position.

Republican moral values are only used against Democrats.

I'm talking about the other GOP candidates. What good would it do? Plenty.

A call to arms by candidate X to Republicans everywhere to not tolerate such a deceitful and disgraceful figure. A call for the GOP to actually "walk the walk" about family values which was supposedly one of the cornerstones of their party that separates them from the Democrats who are pro-choice, pro gay marriage, anti-family, etc... and all of the other nonsense you guys spill all the time.



My post was about other candidates.

Your response was that basically, "he's finished, just let him die"

My response was that if you feel X about him, you should say X about him. In this case where there was apparent fraud, lies told to cover up the truth, and repeated infractions of....shit....human decency....I think it is your obligation to say something if you're seeking the party's nomination. YOU--Grandpa--did that. Kudos. But I'm talking about the other candidates, not you.

Thanks for the spirited debate. But I disagree that because he's roadkill, you should just hold your tongue.

Then they'd have to do the same to Newt. These guys will never dis someone in their own party as there is always the chance the person they dis will select them as VP or award them with a cabinet position.

Republican moral values are only used against Democrats.

Seems that way....

Of course what I was trying to get GMU to admit is that nearly all of them have platoons of skeletons in their closets.

All have sexual scandals, criminal accusations and/or imorality in their closets? Is that what you're peddling?

What does it say of the rest of the field of GOP that they are not calling him out on this.

Must be more of them Republican Family Values, eh?

What it says is that they don't want to pile on.

Hell, Bush-41 didn't really make a big deal about Bill Clinton's womanizing in 1992, and neither did Bob Dole in 1996.

Let's put this whole thing in perspective. Cain was a "none of the above" vote. Or to put it in a way that a lib like yourself can understand, it was like Obama voting "Present".

We didn't like what we saw, and supporting Cain was a way of expressing distaste. We knew he wasn't going to be the nominee.

Now Gingrich appears to be getting serious, so Cain's support is waning. I think it would have waned without the women, but that probably didn't help.

What if it turns out (unlikely as it might seem) that all these women are lying or crazy. Not a one of them has produced a single bit of evidence.

You libs said every last one of the women who accused Clinton were lying, until Monica produced a stained dress. Then all but one were lying. And how dare you all ask.

"Don't want to pile on?" WTF.com!?!?? What does that mean? That they will ignore crimes, immorality and the like because they like they guy or are a friend of the guy? They certainly don't "not pile on" when it's a Dem. Just ask Anthony Weiner. It's just more partisanship that the Right is famous for.

And for a people who weren't planning on supporting Cain, they sure know how to act like they are. Are you suggesting that Republicans are all about playing games?

On the evidence, well now we have phone records. Now what?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yea look positive on the whole thing.. he might be fondling women and so on.. but at least it is women and not boys and young men in bathrooms!

LOL!!! It's a damn shame that it has to come to this with the Republicans.

Then they'd have to do the same to Newt. These guys will never dis someone in their own party as there is always the chance the person they dis will select them as VP or award them with a cabinet position.

Republican moral values are only used against Democrats.

All have sexual scandals, criminal accusations and/or imorality in their closets? Is that what you're peddling?

What does it say of the rest of the field of GOP that they are not calling him out on this.

Must be more of them Republican Family Values, eh?

What it says is that they don't want to pile on.

Hell, Bush-41 didn't really make a big deal about Bill Clinton's womanizing in 1992, and neither did Bob Dole in 1996.

Let's put this whole thing in perspective. Cain was a "none of the above" vote. Or to put it in a way that a lib like yourself can understand, it was like Obama voting "Present".

We didn't like what we saw, and supporting Cain was a way of expressing distaste. We knew he wasn't going to be the nominee.

Now Gingrich appears to be getting serious, so Cain's support is waning. I think it would have waned without the women, but that probably didn't help.

What if it turns out (unlikely as it might seem) that all these women are lying or crazy. Not a one of them has produced a single bit of evidence.

You libs said every last one of the women who accused Clinton were lying, until Monica produced a stained dress. Then all but one were lying. And how dare you all ask.

"Don't want to pile on?" WTF.com!?!?? What does that mean? That they will ignore crimes, immorality and the like because they like they guy or are a friend of the guy? They certainly don't "not pile on" when it's a Dem. Just ask Anthony Weiner. It's just more partisanship that the Right is famous for.

And for a people who weren't planning on supporting Cain, they sure know how to act like they are. Are you suggesting that Republicans are all about playing games?

On the evidence, well now we have phone records. Now what?

It's a shame democrats do not hold their own to the same standards they hold republicans.

But you do realize that is one of the teaching of alinsky rules for radicals.

 

[Dr.Drock]

He's an american politician, or wants to be at least. I'll bet 95%+ of them are womanizers or at least cheat on their wives.

 

[Full-Auto]

Quit being an ass, your statement is half true, both parties fuck up with their lapses in morality but Dems don't proclaim themselves to be party of Christian and religious morals and values.

Fuck off bitch, I will stop being an ass to you when you stop being a fucking moron liberal lying hack

You admit being an ass, I already knew that but thanks for confirming it and my post was true, you Repugs wear your religious morals and values on your sleeves and even block legislation for others based on it but have no problem trashing for a little secret hanky panky on the side.

You should be very concerned then.

Not being religious leaves me clinging to one thing. Us cost cutting terrorists ya know...........