Woman claims Bill Clinton raped her in 1978

[paulitician]

Cain did not have sexual relations with those women. So what's the big deal? Time to move on.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Clinton was a womanizer and seducer. That is not the profile of a rapist.

Is the profile of a date rapist?

No, it's not. Date rapists can't convince you to sleep with them, so they have to rely on rendering you unconscious

 

[Inthemiddle]

This is absolutely true. The same can be said of Ted Kennedy. The average Joe would have been crucified.

Don't be a moron.

 

[jillian]

Cain did not have sexual relations with those women. So what's the big deal? Time to move on.

if it was consensual no one cares who cain bonked.

sexual harassment isn't ok... even from the rightwingnuts' pet token

as for the shill o/p... if clinton raped someone it would have been dealt with. after kenny starr baby spend 70 million of our tax dollars and got nuffin but a blue dress, it would have been addressed.

'tards

 

[paulitician]

I mean Ted Kennedy actually killed a young woman for God's sake. How many years did he serve in our U.S. Congress? So is this stuff really all that important in the whole scheme of things?

 

[Jarhead]

Cain did not have sexual relations with those women. So what's the big deal? Time to move on.

if it was consensual no one cares who cain bonked.

sexual harassment isn't ok... even from the rightwingnuts' pet token

as for the shill o/p... if clinton raped someone it would have been dealt with. after kenny starr baby spend 70 million of our tax dollars and got nuffin but a blue dress, it would have been addressed.

'tards

About 15 years ago, a young girl came in to my office looking for a job. Recruiting was my core business at the time. I had one of my recruiters meet with her and do what she can to help her find something.

My recruiter set her up on several interviews and she cancelled them all with no reason whatsoever...she simply called in and cancelled them....

About a month later I received a notice that she was suing my firm for discriminating against her based on her religion. Apparently she was Sabbath observer...something we did not know nor care about.....and she claimed we did not find her a job because she was a sabbath observer.

I sat down with my attorney and he suggested I settle with her outside of court becuase being in NYC and having the presence I did (President of my trade association at the time), it was not wise to incur the cost of the case as well as the reputation it will bring my firm.

He further explained how difficult it is to prove innocence of discrimination for it always boils down to your word vs their word.

I agreeed to settle for 20K.

We did nothing wrong whatsoever...but if I were to run for office, this situation would have been dragged up and I would have looked guilty in the eyes of anyone that wanted to see me as guilty.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I mean Ted Kennedy actually killed a young woman for God's sake. How many years did he serve in our U.S. Congress? So is this stuff really all that important in the whole scheme of things?

I shall call this the Moron maneuver. You started with an on-topic clear lie, and then connected it to an off topic point that is more disputed (i.e. a questionable exaggeration). When challenged, instead of supporting the clear lie position you've taken, you make an argument in support of your questionable exaggeration. The goal is to gain support for the lie.

This is called the Moron maneuver because when employed it always involves morons, either as speaker or as audience. It can be uttered by a speaker who sincerely believes the argumentation form is valid (and thus is a moron). Or, it can be uttered by an unscrupulous speaker who, despite knowing the argumentation form is not valid, hopes or plans to convince some audience anyway (who would be morons to believe the nonsense).

 

[paulitician]

I mean Ted Kennedy actually killed a young woman for God's sake. How many years did he serve in our U.S. Congress? So is this stuff really all that important in the whole scheme of things?

I shall call this the Moron maneuver. You started with an on-topic clear lie, and then connected it to an off topic point that is more disputed (i.e. a questionable exaggeration). When challenged, instead of supporting the clear lie position you've taken, you make an argument in support of your questionable exaggeration. The goal is to gain support for the lie.

This is called the Moron maneuver because when employed it always involves morons, either as speaker or as audience. It can be uttered by a speaker who sincerely believes the argumentation form is valid (and thus is a moron). Or, it can be uttered by an unscrupulous speaker who, despite knowing the argumentation form is not valid, hopes or plans to convince some audience anyway (who would be morons to believe the nonsense).

Nah,Slick Willy Clinton was a weird perv and Ted Kennedy did murder a young woman. And how did those things effect their careers? Seems like they did pretty well no? So the Herman Cain smears shouldn't disqualify him from being President. My God,we've had a lot worse in there.