What's the difference between Anthony Weiner and Herman Cain?

[The Infidel]

You know, I don't like Couter much, but even I am shocked that she would stick up for child molesters.

What you have to remember to always keep in mind, my dear friend Ravi, is that to RepubliCON$ and NEO-CON$ in particular, party comes before ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. I get shocked too, how far they take this law, but then I'm reminded of the law and come to my senses.

The good news is, they are marginalizing themselves and their dying party. Self-brought on doom. It's a beautiful thing when you think of it.

A lawyer for one of the women is expected to make a statement today (Nov. 4th), sometime this afternoon.

Yep, however, the rabid RW supporters will claim that it's made up by the meedya and that they are paying "anonymous" people to smear The Saint Perv Herb Cain.

Wow.... just wow!


You have anything to support Cain did anything wrong? If ya do bring it!

Otherwise STFU.

You idiots are demonizing a man who was not a party to the settlement, it was the NRA that settled. They (you idiot leftists) say Cain did "it" and is covering "it" up...... AND WE DONT EVEN KNOW WHAT "IT" IS..!!

Cain is'nt backing down, and I know and you know that the double standard is in play here.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I guess we'll find out something this afternoon when the lawyer for one of the women makes his statement.

 

[The Infidel]

Hey Marc, if it's a "left wing conspiracy" trumped up by the lamestream media, why did they blame a fellow Republican FIRST?

That is something Cain's people are going to have to deal with.... that was stupid, and should not have been said until there was concrete truth, but thats the only mistake Cain's camp has made that I can see here.

 

[The Infidel]

I guess we'll find out something this afternoon when the lawyer for one of the women makes his statement.

I cant wait to see what they have to say...



So far they have brought nothing to the table except that some lady felt she was wronged somehow.

Companies in the 90's were dealing with the new rules of "sexual" harassment, and alot of them settled rather than fight it in court..... he said she said stuff sux!

 

[The Infidel]

Give these a listen

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTCZxWiynEM]Herman Cain Sets The Record Straight On The Sean Hannity Show - 11/03/11 (Part 1) - YouTube[/ame]



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9ToL_6N5Ws&feature=related]Herman Cain Sets The Record Straight On The Sean Hannity Show - 11/03/11 (Part 2) - YouTube[/ame]

regarding Perry accusation:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9B-uIiqHXY&feature=related]Herman Cain Sets The Record Straight On The Sean Hannity Show - 11/03/11 (Part 3) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Dr.House]

lawsuits are not usually settled out of court....unless the party agreeing to pay, is at fault or has no chance in court to win the case.

Not from whay I've read... Courts encourage settling out of court....

HowStuffWorks "How Lawsuits Work"

Look at the michael Jackson settlements or the clinton settlements....

to PRETEND like a person is innocent just because the case got dropped from court via a payoff....is not the same thing as claiming a person is innocent because the law and courts and or jury found them not guilty.

there will always be a "doubt" when a person pays off another person to shut up....in my opinion.

That can certainly be your opinion, but settling out of court saves a ton of money over a lengthly trial... People may formulate their own opinions of the persons guilt or innocence, but without a conviction the person remains innocent in the eyes of the law...

 

[Zander]

Weiner smeared himself by being as stupid horny pig. He also has a name that is impotent and comical, just like the party he represents. "Look at the little weiner" ..

Cain is being smeared by Politico.

To have been accused of sexual harassment in the 1990s is like having been accused of molesting children at preschools in the 1980s or accused of being a witch in Massachusetts in the 1690s.

Bring some facts please. Not hyperbole, but facts. Names, dates, court records, etc...otherwise you have nothing but a smear job.

You know, I don't like Couter much, but even I am shocked that she would stick up for child molesters.

She's not sticking up for child molesters. There were dozens of pre-schools "molestation" cases in the 80's that turned out to be nothing more than hysteria. Day-care sex-abuse hysteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Uncensored2008]

You know, I don't like Couter much, but even I am shocked that she would stick up for child molesters.

You know, I don't like you much, Rati; but even I am shocked you would tell such sleazy lies.

Any lie for the party, huh Rati?

 

[Uncensored2008]

What you have to remember to always keep in mind, my dear friend Ravi, is that to RepubliCON$ and NEO-CON$ in particular, party comes before ANYTHING and EVERYTHING.

What we need to remember is that you fascist democrats are fucking liars, that party comes before ANYTHING and EVERYTHING.

You will tell THE most perverse lies to attack the hated opposition, there isn't a shred of integrity in you - party is the ONLY thing that matters to gutter scum like Rati and you.

Did Coulter defend child molesters? Of course not, Rati is a fucking liar, a piece of shit, filth from the sewer.

BUT, since Coulter is from the hated opposition party, Rati didn't even pause before lying through her sleazy teeth, enemy of the party will be lied about, slandered, libeled.

It's just the way gutter scum from the left are.

You define right and wrong by how it serves the party.

I get shocked too, how far they take this law, but then I'm reminded of the law and come to my senses.

I get shocked by how readily you scumbags lie; what lengths you'll go to to defame enemies of your shameful party.

The good news is, they are marginalizing themselves and their dying party. Self-brought on doom. It's a beautiful thing when you think of it.

Slander, libel and lies are beautiful to you fascists; which is why you fascists are so very ugly to me.

You should be ashamed of yourself, but that would take ethics, and we both know you have none at all.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wow.... just wow!


You have anything to support Cain did anything wrong? If ya do bring it!

Otherwise STFU.

You idiots are demonizing a man who was not a party to the settlement, it was the NRA that settled. They (you idiot leftists) say Cain did "it" and is covering "it" up...... AND WE DONT EVEN KNOW WHAT "IT" IS..!!

Cain is'nt backing down, and I know and you know that the double standard is in play here.

They have as much to show wrong doing by Cain as they do to show that Coulter supported child molesting - nothing.

These are shameless, fucking liars. These are the scum of the Earth, "people" like Rati and the other putrid fucks who openly lie about anything in order to slander the enemies of their shameful party.

 

[Jarhead]

What's the difference between Anthony Weiner and Herman Cain

Well...of we follow the stereotype...

One is cut and rarely used.

The other has a reputation of once you go there you never go back.

 

[frazzledgear]

Aside from pictures, I'd say nothing at all.

Of course you wouldn't because you want to pretend mere ACCUSATIONS amount to PROOF HE DID IT!

Gee, why don't we change our justice system to that I wonder? Clearly we never have any false accusations of rape or theft, etc. and the mere accusation is enough to condemn someone and we can just move right on to sentencing.

Here is the difference. In this day and age people are WELL AWARE of the fact that settlements are given out even in the case of false accusations because it is still cheaper than going to court and winning! Until the day those making false claims are forced to pay a penalty for it -its a no-lose situation and an easy money-making scheme. Which is why you see it with medical malpractice as well.

Claiming that anyone who is innocent would never settle is just dead wrong and ignorant about the real world where this is standard practice anymore. First of all the individual probably doesn't have any choice since it is the decision of those who will actually be paying the settlement -and not the person the claim is made against. Doctors who get sued for malpractice can insist they want to go to court -and are told by their insurance companies that if they do that, the insurance company will NOT pay anything if a jury rules against them and they must pay it themselves and they are forced to accept a settlement. It does not require the signature of the individual accused either -it only takes the signature of the person making the claim. Cain never signed any settlement agreement. It is unlikely Cain had any choice in whether there would be a small settlement given to the ONE woman to go away. The other woman didn't receive a settlement at all, she was in the process of being let go when she made her claim and undoubtedly did so to boost the amount of severance pay. Which it did. She didn't sign any confidentiality agreement and could public if she wanted -but she won't. Even the newspaper first reporting on this accurately reported it as "severance pay" and not a settlement. There is only ONE settlement made and since Cain wasn't the party who paid it, he would have had no choice if the decision to settle and avoid the greater costs of going to trial was made.

"Sexual harassment" in this day and age is so loosely defined as to mean nothing more than whatever someone thinks makes them uncomfortable -even if nothing sexual is attached to it WHATSOEVER. Simply being of the opposite sex when a comment is made is NOT sexual harassment -but that is often the grounds for false claims. It needs to be returned LEGALLY mean threats or perceived pressure that one will lose their job or suffer financial penalty unless they agree to have sex or an incident or pattern of such EGREGIOUS sexualized behavior has occurred that any reasonable person would be unable to work there either. AND NOTHING LESS THAN THIS! If others don't find the same situation to be sexual harassment that would make it impossible for them to work there as well, then it isn't sexual harassment and should be labeled exactly what it is -a false accusation.

We all heard about the one woman who claimed sexual harassment for NOTHING but the fact he commented to the woman -and within earshot of his secretary who was just outside the open door - that she was the same height as his wife and then raised his hand to his chin to indicate her height. She acknowledged AT THE TIME this hand gesture was not a sexual one -but it made her uncomfortable anyway. One can only imagine she made a leap that he mentioned her in the same sentence as the woman he sleeps with -and GASP, that must mean he wants to sleep with her too? Are you kidding? This is not sexual harassment at all. Another woman who refuses to reveal her name, claims Cain invited her into his hotel room when they were both attending a seminar -she ASSUMED it was for sex and therefore felt uncomfortable about it. My married boss and I attended an out of town seminar together, I was in his hotel room several times to help lay out his presentation scheduled for the next day and gee, never once assumed he asked me in there to have sex! NOT ONCE did it even cross my mind! Even though wow, he's a man and I"m a woman -doesn't that mean he is automatically assuming he is halfway into bed with me? ROFL Sorry, her assumptions about why he invited her to his room are not evidence of guilt! This is NOT sexual harassment either! If these incidents are "sexual harassment" that should cost someone the Presidency -then you explain how the hell Clinton got elected with one woman after another coming forward PUBLICLY -Democrat women by the way -releasing their names and not presenting it as "anonymous" and not being repeated as unsubstantiated -and insisting the man was a serial sexual offender and even a rapist? In the case of Juanita Broderick, a Democrat campaign worker and nursing home administrator, she even had witnesses who saw her with injuries shortly after, people she told what had happened at that time and not something she just claimed years later. Paula Jones was approached by the Arkansas State Highway Patrol and asked if she wanted to meet Governor Clinton and when she entered the hotel room, Clinton dropped his drawers and wanted her to give him oral sex -indicating a highly likely pattern of using the Arkansas Highway Patrol as his personal whore procurement program! (Which is exactly what some of them later claimed!) Kathleen Willey, a Democrat White House Aide claimed Clinton groped her in the Oval Office and others admitted they saw her emerge in a hurry, looking upset and disheveled. When it REALLY happens, women are NOT afraid to put their name to it and go public and we've seen that is true over and over again. (Democrats acted like because Clinton found a woman who was willing -Lewinsky -it somehow nullified the significance of what all the others had to say!) Yet not a single woman has gone public here. Just an anonymous smear campaign throwing smoke up, insinuations and pretending false accusations amount to the proof needed to destroy a man's reputation and career. That must be one of those liberal values, huh.

You know what the response was by Democrats and leftwing extremist female groups pretending they represent women had to say about all this? One claimed there were so many going public it actually indicated it couldn't be true! How's that for leftwing logic? But all essentially said the same thing -they didn't care. In the case of the leftwing radical female organizations, they even said as long as he stopped groping AFTER they objected to it, then it was ok. In other words, a Democrat gets to grab a woman's breasts first, and ask permission after the fact.

This is the difference between Weiner and Cain. One of them did it, the undeniable proof he did it was right there and he admitted he did it. Cain denied he did it, the stories about what this "sexual harassment" were was not only found to be unsubstantiated by an independent investigation, but downright silly -in addition to which Cain denied he did it at all.

Can YOU tell the difference now?

 

[Big Black Dog]

The answer is black and white...

 

[Ravi]

wall of text

Thanks, your hysteria makes it almost certain he's guilty.

 

[Dr.House]

wall of text

Thanks, your hysteria makes it almost certain he's guilty.

Your ignorance makes it absolutely certain that your knowledge of the US legal system is equal to that of a potted fern...

 

[Jarhead]

What's the difference between Anthony Weiner and Herman Cain?

My guess?

4 inches.

 

[Jarhead]

What's the difference between Anthony Weiner and Herman Cain?

My guess?

4 inches.

Yep...My guess is that Herman's cane is 4 inches bigger than Anthony's weiner.

 

[Ravi]

wall of text

Thanks, your hysteria makes it almost certain he's guilty.

Your ignorance makes it absolutely certain that your knowledge of the US legal system is equal to that of a potted fern...

What US legal system? The legal system wasn't involved.

 

[Dr.House]

Thanks, your hysteria makes it almost certain he's guilty.

Your ignorance makes it absolutely certain that your knowledge of the US legal system is equal to that of a potted fern...

What US legal system? The legal system wasn't involved.

It absolutely was involved... A legal and official complaint was made and the parties settled the complaint without taking it to court...

Parts of the legal system are used even if a complaint doesn't make it to court... There are plenty of legal documents relating to the case... The confidentiality agreement, for one, is a legal and binding document...

Thanks for confirming my suspicions, Fern...

 

[Ravi]

It was handled internally, according to the NRA.

And his guilt or innocence currently has nothing to do with the law....merely the court of public opinion.