FINITO: Herman Cain's POTUS Campaign ends after Numerous sexual accusations are leveled against him, yet he is still in denial to the end [Archive]

Ryu-bom

11-04-2011, 08:40 AM

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67541.html

Herman Cain still thinks his Republican opponents are looking to benefit from accusations that he harassed female employees while he served as the CEO of a restaurant trade group in the 1990s.

On Thursday evening, Cain appeared on conservative radio host Sean Hannity’s show and denied accusations from a Rick Perry pollster, Chris Wilson, that he acted inappropriately toward a woman at an Arlington, Va. restaurant.

http://newsone.com/nation/newsonestaff2/herman-cain-racism-2/
Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain went on FOX News last night and said that he believes the attacks his way are racist though he can’t prove it.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/02/1032480/-Herman-Cain-blames-left-wing-racism-for-his-sexual-harassmentproblem
Herman Cain, responding to a line of questioning yesterday evening from Charles Krauthammer on Fox, saying that his sexual harassment problems are fueled by his political enemies, including not just Republicans, but also Democrats who dislike him because he's black.

Lookie Lookie, Herman Pizza Cain playing the race card......and then goes on blaming liberals and dems for leaking it.. I didn't know Perry belong on the Dem and liberal side:wave:

Pretty sick, how a spat btw conservatives republicans candidates ends up dragging liberals and dems into it.. When liberals and dems had nothing to do with it. But I guess its cool for them to come up with some liberal conspriacy... when all this was done by the conservative sides especially from Perry

mohater

11-04-2011, 08:52 AM

Ryu-bom

11-04-2011, 08:54 AM

what the fark are you talking about.....:lol:

The "liberals" didn't dig this dirt up, it was right-wing republican Perry who always plays dirty

But of course its cool to blame liberals for reverse racism than to look within the conservatives party of republicans

Herman Pizza Cain can't have it both ways, play the race card and alienate his conservative base, or play the race card and blames a side that has TOTALLY NOTHING to do with leaking his dirty secrets

Rebound

11-04-2011, 09:05 AM

Leaking it? The woman took payouts and agreed to remain silent on the issue.

This is all in violation to the agreement.

This is moot no matter how you dice it up. It is a closed issue, but the GOP guys struggling to get ahead are showing how pathetic they are and the Liberals are just pandering to a non-issue.It's ok that he harassed women, because he paid them to keep quiet about it. Let me think, would the Republicans say that about Bill Clinton? They wouldn't subpoena the woman and compel her to testify, would they?

It's not an issue for a private citizen, but the man's running for the White House and he better come clean.

What about personal responsibility? Why is he blaming Rick Perry and the Democrats for what he did?

Lilian

11-04-2011, 09:09 AM

The only person that cares about keeping this alive and benefiting from it is Rick Perry.

The left has nothing to do with this other than laugh at the circus.

Xygonn

11-04-2011, 09:09 AM

Herman Cain going down will be the best possible thing for Ron Paul.

mohater

11-04-2011, 09:10 AM

It's ok that he harassed women, because he paid them to keep quiet about it. Let me think, would the Republicans say that about Bill Clinton? They wouldn't subpoena the woman and compel her to testify, would they?

It's not an issue for a private citizen, but the man's running for the White House and he better come clean.

What about personal responsibility? Why is he blaming Rick Perry and the Democrats for what he did?

Of course it's not OK (assuming the allegations are correct).

That being said, this is legally a closed issue. Clinton's was not a closed issue when it came to light.

He isn't blaming them for what he supposedly did (again, assuming the allegations are correct), he's blaming for the pointless attention on a closed issue.

Your entire post assumes the allegations are true. Again, this is legally a closed issue.

The only person that cares about keeping this alive and benefiting from it is Rick Perry.

The left has nothing to do with this other than laugh at the circus.

The media says otherwise.

Count_Chocula

11-04-2011, 09:13 AM

If there was anything substantial to it, they never would have settled or would have went against court order by now.

RnRbmk

11-04-2011, 09:14 AM

amosem

11-04-2011, 09:14 AM

Cain got the shit end of the stick.

Perry drunk on camera, gets maple syrup.

Exposes this about Cain, no maple syrup.

mohater

11-04-2011, 09:16 AM

I wouldn't mind hearing the full story. Right now we just have Cain claiming it is "ridiculous" and "baseless" but we have nothing to back any of it up. If it is really nothing then why can't anyone talk about it?

When a settlement is made, all parties are supposed to respect the terms of the settlement and leave it alone. That includes Cain coming out and directly saying the women were after money and nothing else (character attacks on the women).

Also, how to do prove a negative (how does Cain prove he didn't harass these women)?

dynamite

11-04-2011, 09:17 AM

Nobody leaked this story, It has been around for a LONG time. Karl Rove had his mates put it in the media spotlight last week. Cain is now in a death spiral (not that he was ever a serious contender).

Demosthenes9

11-04-2011, 09:20 AM

RnRbmk

11-04-2011, 09:24 AM

When a settlement is made, all parties are supposed to respect the terms of the settlement and leave it alone. That includes Cain coming out and directly saying the women were after money and nothing else (character attacks on the women).

Also, how to do prove a negative (how does Cain prove he didn't harass these women)?
What's interesting is that this happened more than once. I understand your point, I'm purely speaking on my own opinion that I wouldn't mind if more information came out. And I'm aware that if he could prove it didn't happen we wouldn't have to worry about it today. I just won't give him the benefit of the doubt. But you're right that it's a non-issue, because I'd never vote for him anyway.

Rebound

11-04-2011, 09:30 AM

Let me help you, children: The GOP leadership picked Romney long before these carnival sideshow "debates" ever started. They probably picked him back when he agreed to drop out of the 2008 race for, in his words, "The good of the Party." McCain lost, and now it's Romney's turn, and you've gotta be dumb as sawdust to think any of these other candidates have a snowbsll's chance in Hell.

I'm no fan of Romney, I'm just telling you the obvious: The GOP has already selected the candidate, and the democratic process of selecting a nominee doesn't actually exist in this race.

If you're a Republican, your decision was made for you long ago, behind closed doors.

mrfrancis3000

11-04-2011, 09:33 AM

What/who is the "right" and the "left"?

hsjpatman

11-04-2011, 09:37 AM

Let me help you, children: The GOP leadership picked Romney long before these carnival sideshow "debates" ever started. They probably picked him back when he agreed to drop out of the 2004 race for, in his words, "The good of the Party." McCain lost, and now it's Romney's turn, and you've gotta be dumb as sawdust to think any of these other candidates have a snowbsll's chance in Hell.

I'm no fan of Romney, I'm just telling you the obvious: The GOP has already selected the candidate, and the democratic process of selecting a nominee doesn't actually exist in this race.

If you're a Republican, your decision was made for you long ago, behind closed doors.

Romney dropped out and McCain lost in 2004 ? :confused:

TRNT

11-04-2011, 09:38 AM

TRNT

11-04-2011, 09:43 AM

Of course it's not OK (assuming the allegations are correct).

That being said, this is legally a closed issue. Clinton's was not a closed issue when it came to light.

He isn't blaming them for what he supposedly did (again, assuming the allegations are correct), he's blaming for the pointless attention on a closed issue.

Your entire post assumes the allegations are true. Again, this is legally a closed issue.

The media says otherwise.How so? A private agreement does not close all legal issues.

But even if it is legally a closed issue, so what? Most political issues are NOT legal issues. Look at all the flip-flops by Romney. None of those are legal issues but they are some of the most relevant political issues.

derango1

11-04-2011, 09:47 AM

Sexual harassment is an overused femi-nazi term to scare males into walking on eggshells.

TRNT

11-04-2011, 09:49 AM

I am more than a tad bit confused about something.

Apparently, one of the accusations is that while on some trip, a group was sitting around a table, they were drinking (perhaps quite a bit) and they were "socializing" and during this time, Cain supposedly made a pass at one of the women.

Ummmm, AND ??

Isn't that normally what happens when you combine men, women and alcohol ???

Now, I can understand where that kind of things is off limit in the office, or a board room, or even when away at a conference while you are actually doing "conference" stuff.

But sitting around a table having cocktails???OMG!

O M G ! ! ! !

Well, maybe that is what happens with you and people that you associate with but I have never seen that happen in my presence. Never. Ever.

And add to this the fact Cain was married at the time. No respect for marriage anymore!!!

O M G ! ! ! ! !

Rebound

11-04-2011, 10:07 AM

Romney dropped out and McCain lost in 2004 ? :confused:It's Christmas.

Demosthenes9

11-04-2011, 10:07 AM

OMG!

O M G ! ! ! !

Well, maybe that is what happens with you and people that you associate with but I have never seen that happen in my presence. Never. Ever.

And add to this the fact Cain was married at the time. No respect for marriage anymore!!!

O M G ! ! ! ! !

Yes, men and women that I associate with actually flirt with each other when drinking, even coworkers. This is shocking?

hsjpatman

11-04-2011, 10:14 AM

Yes, men and women that I associate with actually flirt with each other when drinking, even coworkers. This is shocking?

You gotta wonder where all these people came from.
Arranged marriages perhaps ?

Tony_Danza

11-04-2011, 10:34 AM

It was OK when Bill Clinton sexually harrassed women though.

LOL!

Absolutely no one tried to make it a big deal when Clinton was accused of harrasing women. :rolleyes:

EscapeVelo

11-04-2011, 10:39 AM

TRNT

11-04-2011, 10:43 AM

Yes, men and women that I associate with actually flirt with each other when drinking, even coworkers. This is shocking?Well, no one pays $40,000 for a flirt.

But people that you associate with flirt with married people or do the flitting even if they are married? What is your line of work, escort service? :lol:

You must be proud!

EscapeVelo

11-04-2011, 10:45 AM

Well, no one pays $40,000 for a flirt.

Yes they do given the zeitgeist surrounding Feminist inspired hysteria about male sexuality.

The decisions to settle are made with regards to cost of defending against the accusation as well as negative press about the organization.

124nic8

11-04-2011, 10:55 AM

Yes they do given the zeitgeist surrounding Feminist inspired hysteria about male sexuality.

The decisions to settle are made with regards to cost of defending against the accusation as well as negative press about the organization.

If that were the only thing to it, they're just inviting more by settling.

No one settles w/o any evidence against them. No evidence and it gets thown out.

mohater

11-04-2011, 11:18 AM

How so? A private agreement does not close all legal issues.

But even if it is legally a closed issue, so what? Most political issues are NOT legal issues. Look at all the flip-flops by Romney. None of those are legal issues but they are some of the most relevant political issues.

This specific issue is closed. The women took settlements and all are covered under a non-disclosure agreement. End of story.

Asking Cain to comment on an issue where there is a non-disclosure agreement is idiotic. More so when many media outlets are focusing on Cain and not the women (no one should get a free pass here). Romeny's flip flops to not involve past litigation with non-disclosure agreements.

trancepire

11-04-2011, 12:07 PM

OMG!

O M G ! ! ! !

Well, maybe that is what happens with you and people that you associate with but I have never seen that happen in my presence. Never. Ever.

And add to this the fact Cain was married at the time. No respect for marriage anymore!!!

O M G ! ! ! ! !I'm with Demo on this one. Perhaps you've not been to many social gatherings involving alcohol?

Ryu-bom

11-04-2011, 12:18 PM

Well if there is enough alcohol and certain presidential candiatates are drinking too much and becoming "overly friendly" that is of some concern..

I guess moderation or PROFESSIONALSIM isn't on Cain's vocabulary

So I guess just cause you are at a social professional gathering with drinks, that is a excuse to drink enough that you become "overly friendly" right....NONSENSE
Just like if you were at a business dinner and you are the only one ordering steaks and lobsters with a doggie bag.... UNPROFESSIONAL

I guess his excuse is the drink made him do it... Time for prohibition...:D

Terrell

11-04-2011, 12:21 PM

Who knows what, if anything happened between Herman Cain and whomever's accusing him. Without more details it's mere speculation.

I wouldn't take settling this as an admission of anything either. It's possible that a settlement with a non-disclosure agreement was simply easier, than fighting said case, even if Mr Cain is completely innocent. Lawyers cost money, people who are accused of civil torts don't have a right to remain silent, and what real limits are there on what a person can be questioned about, particularily in depositions?

I do remember President Clinton being asked about Ms. Lewinski, in the Paula Jones case, even though Ms. Lewinski was a willing participant with President Clinton and not a case of an unwanted sexual advance on the part of President Clinton. Personally I didn't see the relevance of a willing relationship with Ms Lewinski to have any bearing on whether or not Paula Jones was sexually harassed.

Ryu-bom

11-04-2011, 12:22 PM

Look at this doofus acting UNPROFESSIONAL...
http://nynerd.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/bush-merkel-backrub4.jpg

How would you like to be on the recieving end of that....

I wouldn't take settling this as an admission of anything either. It's possible that a settlement with a non-disclosure agreement was simply easier, than fighting said case, even if Mr Cain is completely innocent. Lawyers cost money, people who are accused of civil torts don't have a right to remain silent, and what real limits are there on what a person can be questioned about, particularily in depositions?
.

So hopefully when you plea NO CONTEST to a charge, you can use that excuse as well.....:wave:
And you can say you were never convicted of anything or trying to convince people that, good luck at that

tightwad

11-04-2011, 12:25 PM

EscapeVelo

11-04-2011, 12:27 PM

If that were the only thing to it, they're just inviting more by settling.

No one settles w/o any evidence against them. No evidence and it gets thown out.

I think that you should seek expert legal cousel on this. They will inform you about the way things are done and the why.

Terrell

11-04-2011, 12:28 PM

So hopefully when you plea NO CONTEST to a charge, you can use that excuse as well.....:wave:
And you can say you were never convicted of anything or trying to convince people that, good luck at that

This isn't a criminal matter, it's a civil case. In a criminal case you actually have a right to an attorney, while in a civil case you do not (even if innocent you have to pay for an attorney out of your own pocket, and that may be more expensive than settling). In a criminal case you have a right to remain silent, in a civil case you do not. In a criminal case the prosecutor has to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, while in a civil case it's only preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not) that the Plaintiff has to prove.

You might want to learn the differences between a criminal case and a civil case before you bring this ridiculous line of argument.

Ryu-bom

11-04-2011, 12:46 PM

This isn't a criminal matter, it's a civil case. In a criminal case you actually have a right to an attorney, while in a civil case you do not (even if innocent you have to pay for an attorney out of your own pocket, and that may be more expensive than settling). In a criminal case you have a right to remain silent, in a civil case you do not. In a criminal case the prosecutor has to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, while in a civil case it's only preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not) that the Plaintiff has to prove.

You might want to learn the differences between a criminal case and a civil case before you bring this ridiculous line of argument.

really Walmart fought their sex discrimation lawsuit by dragging it on... but rich ass Cain couldn't...
It wasn't like Cain was "too poor" to fight these charges

He lost the benefit of the doubt after NUMEROUS settlements... must because of this "race" I guess...:rolleyes:

Terrell

11-04-2011, 12:52 PM

really Walmart fought their sex discrimation lawsuit by dragging it on... but rich ass Cain couldn't...
It wasn't like Cain was "too poor" to fight these charges

He lost the benefit of the doubt after NUMEROUS settlements... must because of this "race" I guess...:rolleyes:

Didn't say he was too poor. Said I couldn't rule out it being easier to settle. One example of a company fighting, says nothing to this other example.

Wal-Mart was accused in a class-action suit which means they could have had to pay out to thousands of people, rather than possibly 2 in the Cain case. For Wal-Mart it may have been much cheaper to fight than settle, considering the number of plaintiffs involved, while in Cain's case it may be cheaper to settle than fight with only 2 plaintiffs potentially involved. A course of action that's less expensive in one case, may be more expensive in the other and depends on the specifics of the issue at hand.

You'll have to do better than that.

Ryu-bom

11-04-2011, 12:53 PM

Ryu-bom

11-04-2011, 12:58 PM

Didn't say he was too poor. Said I couldn't rule out it being easier to settle. One example of a company fighting, says nothing to this other example.

Wal-Mart was accused in a class-action suit which means they could have had to pay out to thousands of people, rather than possibly 2 in the Cain case. For Wal-Mart it may have been much cheaper to fight than settle, considering the number of plaintiffs involved, while in Cain's case it may be cheaper to settle than fight with only 2 plaintiffs potentially involved. A course of action that's less expensive in one case, may be more expensive in the other and depends on the specifics of the issue at hand.

You'll have to do better than that.

He lost the benefit of the doubt when he was the one named in the accusations time after time, not the company which he worked at ( unlike Walmart case )

He settled too many cases in which the lawsuit was direct at him as a individual, so it take away his benefit of the doubt.. If it was one, Im pretty sure it would be brushed off, but numerous settlement with his name attached raises a pretty red flag

Terrell

11-04-2011, 01:04 PM

hey anyone notice how the same people who bash Clinton for his sexual misconduct, are now defending Cain sexual misconduct...
And instead of blaming Cain for bad judgement they blame the alcohol made him do it...:lol:

LOL... at partisan hacks

You should actually read what I posted about Clinton. It wasn't an insult to him, whom I voted for twice btw, but an insult to Paula Jones' lawyers who asked him questions about Monica that I thought were totally irrelevant to the Paula Jones case. It was also intended as a criticism to the deposition process, where things whose relevance is at best questionable can be asked of you under oath, and possibly cause you to lose the case if you refuse to answer.

As to Cain, I don't buy that his race had anything to do with these allegations. I'm saying that we don't have any details about said allegations, or even the women coming forward to say, in their own words with their names attached, exactly what she says Mr. Cain did. Oh and one of MSNBC's anchors, Lawrence O'Donnell, offered to pay for whatever they have to pay to step forward.

124nic8

11-04-2011, 01:04 PM

I think that you should seek expert legal cousel on this. They will inform you about the way things are done and the why.

IOW, you have no argument against my logic....

Terrell

11-04-2011, 01:08 PM

He lost the benefit of the doubt when he was the one named in the accusations time after time, not the company which he worked at ( unlike Walmart case )

He settled too many cases in which the lawsuit was direct at him as a individual, so it take away his benefit of the doubt.. If it was one, Im pretty sure it would be brushed off, but numerous settlement with his name attached raises a pretty red flag

If settling those two cases, was cheaper than defending one or both of them, it made financial sense to settle them. When the bills come due, money to pay them, is often more important than principle. Defending a civil case, even successfully, when it's more expensive in attorney's fees, time lost working, etc, can be a rather phyrric victory. It also doesn't shut up your critics.

As to benefit of the doubt, there are insufficent details out there to make a fair judgment on what Mr.Cain did or didn't do. Sexual harrasment can be rather broad, and can be rather subjective. It's not just "sleep with me or you're fired".

EscapeVelo

11-04-2011, 01:13 PM

IOW, you have no argument against my logic....

You are impervious to logic. I suggest you actually ask an expert, who will relieve you of your ignorance.

Yes, frivolous lawsuits against deep pockets have proliferated, including sexual harrassment claims.

Dr. J

11-04-2011, 01:13 PM

Not that I am being apologetic, but when facing a lawsuit you do a cost/benefit analysis of fighting/taking it to trial, vs some sort of settlement. Often settlements are reached simply because they are cheaper and usually the resolution is money for the accuser and complete silence on both sides about the matter; although, a payoff seems to smack of wrongdoing, what's the cost of being "right"? Supposedly one of the women got a year's salary - what's that, like $40-50k? How much would it cost to hire attorneys, etc, not even counting a trial itself?

Ryu-bom

11-04-2011, 01:19 PM

You should actually read what I posted about Clinton. It wasn't an insult to him, whom I voted for twice btw, but an insult to Paula Jones' lawyers who asked him questions about Monica that I thought were totally irrelevant to the Paula Jones case. It was also intended as a criticism to the deposition process, where things whose relevance is at best questionable can be asked of you under oath, and possibly cause you to lose the case if you refuse to answer.

that wasn't directed at you, it was more of other posters here that brought up Clinton

As to Cain, I don't buy that his race had anything to do with these allegations. I'm saying that we don't have any details about said allegations, or even the women coming forward to say, in their own words with their names attached, exactly what she says Mr. Cain did. Oh and one of MSNBC's anchors, Lawrence O'Donnell, offered to pay for whatever they have to pay to step forward.

I brought up the "race" thing more out of scarcasism, which was why I put this at the end ( :rolleyes: )

124nic8

11-04-2011, 01:22 PM

You are impervious to logic.

Cop out used when you have none.

I suggest you actually ask an expert, who will relieve you of your ignorance.

So you admit you're an amateur...

Yes, frivolous lawsuits against deep pockets have proliferated, including sexual harrassment claims.

And are thrown out when there is no evidence.

BTW, a real lawyer expert on ABC News said essentially what I'm saying. They don't settle for $40K when there's nothing to it.

Ryu-bom

11-04-2011, 01:23 PM

If settling those two cases, was cheaper than defending one or both of them, it made financial sense to settle them. When the bills come due, money to pay them, is often more important than principle. Defending a civil case, even successfully, when it's more expensive in attorney's fees, time lost working, etc, can be a rather phyrric victory. It also doesn't shut up your critics.

As to benefit of the doubt, there are insufficent details out there to make a fair judgment on what Mr.Cain did or didn't do. Sexual harrasment can be rather broad, and can be rather subjective. It's not just "sleep with me or you're fired".

You would think he would have learned from the first one huh?

Why have multiple cases to begin with, shouldn't one mistake be more then enough to behave ?

Even if settling was cheaper, there should NOT have been MULTIPLE CASES.. so there is only two things that we can gather from this.
Either he was a easy mark to shake down and known not to fight back cause he was maybe a ( another name of a cat ) OR he was guilty of doing naughty naughty unprofessional stuff at work..

Terrell

11-04-2011, 01:41 PM

You would think he would have learned from the first one huh?

Why have multiple cases to begin with, shouldn't one mistake be more then enough to behave ?

Even if settling was cheaper, there should NOT have been MULTIPLE CASES.. so there is only two things that we can gather from this.
Either he was a easy mark to shake down and known not to fight back cause he was maybe a ( another name of a cat ) OR he was guilty of doing naughty naughty unprofessional stuff at work..

How may accusers accuse you of sexual harassment doesn't really say whether or not you did anything, particularily since it's pretty broadly defined and I think some things can be considered sexual harrassment are questionable. For me to change my mind on this, I need much more detail as to the specific nature of said allegations before I can take them seriously. RIght now they are lack too much detail.

What would help on this is for the women involved, to come forward publicly, state their names, and the specifics that they allege happened. Then I may, or may not, change my mind depending on what they actually say. If they're not serious enough about this to put their good names on the line, why should I take it seriously?

(I find the idea of being able to accuse someone anonymously of any wrongdoing, crime or tort, while not having to put your own name out there, unfair to the accused. If you can accuse anonymously, what consequence is there for false allegation for those who would falsely accuse?)

It's possible that he may have used his position to attempt to obtain (meaning coerce) sex from these women, but we don't have the details to know that. If he actually did those things, and there's evidence to show he did those things, I'd have a different outlook on this. Settling the cases doesn't prove, in and of itself, that he did those things, only that the financial & nusiance cost of settling was probably less than fighting.

Foreveryours

11-04-2011, 01:47 PM

OhNoItsDEVO

11-04-2011, 02:30 PM

The "liberals" didn't dig this dirt up, it was right-wing republican Perry who always plays dirty

How do you know that?

Tony_Danza

11-04-2011, 02:42 PM

BTW, a real lawyer expert on ABC News said essentially what I'm saying. They don't settle for $40K when there's nothing to it.

I also wouldn't imagine they would settle for $40k if it were particularly scandalous.

TRNT

11-04-2011, 02:47 PM

This specific issue is closed. The women took settlements and all are covered under a non-disclosure agreement. End of story.

Asking Cain to comment on an issue where there is a non-disclosure agreement is idiotic. More so when many media outlets are focusing on Cain and not the women (no one should get a free pass here). Romeny's flip flops to not involve past litigation with non-disclosure agreements.You totally ignored my argument. Here it is again:

How so? A private agreement does not close all legal issues.

And you have a point about Cain. He IS bound by that agreement. But this is what he could and should say:

Per a legal and binding agreement I am prevented from answering your questions. However, I am willing to agree that we lift the restriction if others agree too. And then I would answer your questions.

tightwad

11-04-2011, 02:53 PM

Cop out used when you have none.

So you admit you're an amateur...

And are thrown out when there is no evidence.

BTW, a real lawyer expert on ABC News said essentially what I'm saying. They don't settle for $40K when there's nothing to it.

So based on your logic no settlement has ever been made for $40K (or more) when there was no evidence or it wasn't a very strong case? Can you back up your very thin logic with some proof? You always ask others for proof yet never seem to be able to supply any yourself. You are obviously an expert so prove it.

124nic8

11-04-2011, 04:04 PM

So based on your logic no settlement has ever been made for $40K (or more) when there was no evidence or it wasn't a very strong case?

You obviously don't undertand logic. No one said it never happens. That would be foolish.

I believe what was implied is that it's highly unlikely.

Can you back up your very thin logic with some proof? You always ask others for proof yet never seem to be able to supply any yourself. You are obviously an expert so prove it.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I'm no expert.

I offered my evidence. Dan Abrams on ABC News is my expert. He said they would not have paid $40K if there was nothing to it. And it would have taken more than just the remarks Cain has admitted to.

The thing you don't seem to understand is that this sort of evaluation is a judgement call when lacking facts of the particular case.

mohater

11-04-2011, 05:13 PM

You totally ignored my argument. Here it is again:

How so? A private agreement does not close all legal issues.

And you have a point about Cain. He IS bound by that agreement. But this is what he could and should say:

Per a legal and binding agreement I am prevented from answering your questions. However, I am willing to agree that we lift the restriction if others agree too. And then I would answer your questions.

I'm sorry his word for word responses are not in line with your expectations.... saying "I'm not going to comment on that" also suffices.

This is not a "private" agreement, it's a legal one.

Demosthenes9

11-04-2011, 05:41 PM

You obviously don't undertand logic. No one said it never happens. That would be foolish.

I believe what was implied is that it's highly unlikely.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I'm no expert.

I offered my evidence. Dan Abrams on ABC News is my expert. He said they would not have paid $40K if there was nothing to it. And it would have taken more than just the remarks Cain has admitted to.

The thing you don't seem to understand is that this sort of evaluation is a judgement call when lacking facts of the particular case.

And this article at the WSJ Law Blog says otherwise:

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/11/04/the-rain-on-cain-a-closer-look-at-sex-harassment-and-the-law/

So if he was falsely accused, why shell out the money? Defendants, especially if they are prominent executives, are often willing to pay even if they feel that a plaintiff has little chance of winning. A settlement puts a matter to rest, and ensures unseemly allegations aren’t aired in public.

In cases involving high-level executives backed by deep-pocketed companies or organizations, lawyers say, a six-figure settlement suggests the plaintiff has a case with at least an outside chance of persuading a jury. A settlement in the low five figures suggests the allegation is likely to hit significant headwinds.

Jeff Kichaven, a mediator in Los Angeles with experience handling harassment cases, said six-figure settlements are often reserved for the “worst fact patterns,” such as a supervisor repeatedly groping an employee, or a straight “quid-pro-quo,” when a boss tells an employee “sleep with me or you’re fired.” Said Mr. Kichaven, “You’re not going to settle those cases for $35,000.”

tightwad

11-04-2011, 06:53 PM

TRNT

11-04-2011, 07:37 PM

This is not a "private" agreement, it's a legal one.Even a "legal" agreement could be a private agreement.

124nic8

11-04-2011, 07:59 PM

And this article at the WSJ Law Blog says otherwise:

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/11/04/the-rain-on-cain-a-closer-look-at-sex-harassment-and-the-law/

No, it doesn't "say otherwise."

This was not a six-figure settlement.

"Significant head winds" does not translate to "nothing there."

And news reports are that Cain was not involved in the settlement.

124nic8

11-04-2011, 08:01 PM

Demosthenes9

11-04-2011, 08:04 PM

Um, no...you said it wouldn't happen. Based on one non-practicing attorney turned court reporter/legal analyst (those that can do, those that can't teach). As was further shown a competing legal analysis shows it is more commonplace than your lack of logic ("no one would pay $40K if they weren't guilty") would allow.

Your tenuous grasp of logic only allows "logical" conclusions that match your baseless preconceived notions. Not uncommon in a world where people choose one side and run with it.

Sometimes, it's just to easy, especially when you can just sit back and let them contradict themselves.

BTW, a real lawyer expert on ABC News said essentially what I'm saying. They don't settle for $40K when there's nothing to it.

No one said it never happens. That would be foolish.I believe what was implied is that it's highly unlikely.

I offered my evidence. Dan Abrams on ABC News is my expert. He said they would not have paid $40K if there was nothing to it.

I'm not seeing where Dan Abrams OR Nic have said, "they probably wouldn't settle for $40K if there was nothing to it", or anything of the sort.

Nope, what I see is "THEY WOULD NOT HAVE PAID". That's a definitive statement, and contrary to Nic's claim, that is what he has been asserting.

No, it doesn't "say otherwise."

This was not a six-figure settlement.

"Significant head winds" does not translate to "nothing there."

And news reports are that Cain was not involved in the settlement.

Ummm, you obviously didn't read the entirety of what I posted, now did ya ??

Demosthenes9

11-04-2011, 08:07 PM

You're conclusion is correct.... for your own "analysis."

You've got nothing else. Abrams is a legal expert hired by ABC. You've got your big mouth.

Actually, he has convincing and sound logic to back him up, while all you have are posts where you contradict the very "proof" that you quote.

:)

124nic8

11-04-2011, 08:08 PM

Sometimes, it's just to easy, especially when you can just sit back and let them contradict themselves.

I'm not seeing where Dan Abrams OR Nic have said, "they probably wouldn't settle for $40K if there was nothing to it", or anything of the sort.

Nope, what I see is "THEY WOULD NOT HAVE PAID". That's a definitive statement, and contrary to Nic's claim, that is what he has been asserting.

Ummm, you obviously didn't read the entirety of what I posted, now did ya ??

I told you what Abrams said and gave you the common sense interpretation.

Don't really care to listen to your nit-picking (again.)

So if you got nothing of substance, I'm done here. :wave:

Demosthenes9

11-04-2011, 08:41 PM

I told you what Abrams said and gave you the common sense interpretation.

Don't really care to listen to your nit-picking (again.)

So if you got nothing of substance, I'm done here. :wave:

Dan unequivocally said that they wouldn't have paid $40K if nothing was there.

How does that not mean, in Dan's view, that it "never happens" ?? Hell, it's an absolutely clear implication.

I know that you told us what Abrams said, that's not the issue. The issue is that you ALSO said "No one said it never happens".

Why did you say that ? Because Tightwad rather deftly pinned you into a box and you had to try and figure a way out of it. In doing so, you contradicted the "expert" that you had cited.

AlphaSaver

11-04-2011, 09:23 PM

White democrats attacking a black man using the narrative that they have to protect their white women... Welcome back to 1870s through the 1950s....

DBC

11-04-2011, 09:53 PM

I'm with Demo on this one. Perhaps you've not been to many social gatherings involving alcohol?
It would be fine if Herman Cain was a godless heathen, but he is a morally conservative guy. Homeboy can't covet thy neighbor's wife without committing a sin.

MadisonAlexa

11-04-2011, 10:37 PM

It would be fine if Herman Cain was a godless heathen, but he is a morally conservative guy. Homeboy can't covet thy neighbor's wife without committing a sin.

I'm with DBC on this one.

Family values, anyone? ;)

Demosthenes9

11-04-2011, 10:49 PM

Wow, did Washington Post vp and former Executive Editor Ben Bradlee sexually harass a female reporter while answering questions about the Cain accusations ?

http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/03/former-washington-post-editor-discusses-cain-sexual-harassment-story-while-pawing-daily-caller-reporter/#ooid=lpamJ5MjpJPaItwv-O8f7gDE9yg4mJow

Demosthenes9

11-04-2011, 10:51 PM

It would be fine if Herman Cain was a godless heathen, but he is a morally conservative guy. Homeboy can't covet thy neighbor's wife without committing a sin.
I'm with DBC on this one.

Family values, anyone? ;)

Funny how you all only worry about "family values" when it's a Conservative, huh ????

MadisonAlexa

11-04-2011, 10:54 PM

Funny how you all only worry about "family values" when it's a Conservative, huh ????

Yeh funny that ;)

Phreaker47

11-05-2011, 12:44 AM

The harassment claims could have very well been baseless, who knows.

It doesn't matter. This guy ruins himself in so many other ways already...

TRNT

11-05-2011, 06:41 AM

You're conclusion is correct.... for your own "analysis."

You've got nothing else. Abrams is a legal expert hired by ABC. You've got your big mouth.You forgot his tight ....

:lol:

TRNT

11-05-2011, 06:45 AM

Funny how you all only worry about "family values" when it's a Conservative, huh ????Deep down we worry about hypocrisy.

The harassment claims could have very well been baseless, who knows.

It doesn't matter. This guy ruins himself in so many other ways already...This is a very good point. For all we know this guy might be totally innocent.

But he sure acts like a guilty man. :lol:

124nic8

11-05-2011, 12:44 PM

Dan unequivocally said that they wouldn't have paid $40K if nothing was there.

How does that not mean, in Dan's view, that it "never happens" ?? Hell, it's an absolutely clear implication.

I know that you told us what Abrams said, that's not the issue. The issue is that you ALSO said "No one said it never happens".

Why did you say that ? Because Tightwad rather deftly pinned you into a box and you had to try and figure a way out of it. In doing so, you contradicted the "expert" that you had cited.

I didn't contradict him. I interpreted what he said in a reasonable way.

You don't seem to understand the difference between general rules and absolute statements.

Funny how you all only worry about "family values" when it's a Conservative, huh ????

It's always easier to hang someone on their own petard.

Demosthenes9

11-05-2011, 12:59 PM

I didn't contradict him. I interpreted what he said in a reasonable way.

You don't seem to understand the difference between general rules and absolute statements.

I disagree. If he believed that there were indeed instances where people would pay $40K to settle a suit even if there was no real basis to it, then he wouldn't have said " they would not have paid $40K if there was nothing to it."

124nic8

11-05-2011, 02:21 PM

I disagree. If he believed that there were indeed instances where people would pay $40K to settle a suit even if there was no real basis to it, then he wouldn't have said " they would not have paid $40K if there was nothing to it."

Saying something doesn't happen is not the same as saying it never happens.

There is often an implied "in general" or "hardly ever."

Demosthenes9

11-05-2011, 02:47 PM

Saying something doesn't happen is not the same as saying it never happens.

There is often an implied "in general" or "hardly ever."

Saying " they would not have paid $40K if there was nothing to it." is an absolutely definitive statement indicating that there is no way they would have paid if there was nothing to it.

That's why I said that YOUR claims contradict Abrams.

TRNT

11-05-2011, 03:38 PM

You don't seem to understand the difference between general rules and absolute statements.
How true.
Saying something doesn't happen is not the same as saying it never happens.

There is often an implied "in general" or "hardly ever."
Let see if he can guess which kind is the following statment

It does not snow in very low temps

The other day I offered two statements:

Grass does not grow in Sahara
Cows have four legs
As I am sure you recall, Demos took the first one and nit-picked it to death. But let's consider the second one. does Demos claim that the second one means every single cow has four legs?

trancepire

11-05-2011, 06:38 PM

It would be fine if Herman Cain was a godless heathen, but he is a morally conservative guy. Homeboy can't covet thy neighbor's wife without committing a sin.
I'm with DBC on this one.

Family values, anyone? ;)Herein lies the problem with believing that a politician believes what he says.

Demosthenes9

11-05-2011, 07:28 PM

How true.

Let see if he can guess which kind is the following statment

It does not snow in very low temps

The other day I offered two statements:

Grass does not grow in Sahara
Cows have four legs
As I am sure you recall, Demos took the first one and nit-picked it to death. But let's consider the second one. does Demos claim that the second one means every single cow has four legs?

And as was frakking demonstrated in that thread, it does indeed snow in LOTS and LOTS of places that have very low temps.

And yes, some grass does indeed naturally grow in the Sahara desert, contrary to your mistaken opinion.

Cows having four legs ? That would be an extreme anomaly that would only occur if A: something happened to a cow that led to the loss of a leg, or B: a gene mutation leading to a birth defect.

Now, is some grass growing in the Sahara desert an anomoly ? No. Is snow falling in lots and logs of really cold places an anomoly ? The answer here is NO as well.

The simple fact of the matter is that Nic made a statement that was WRONG, I pointed out that he was WRONG. Your silly ass jumped in and made a number of really stupid statements and you were shown to be WRONG as well.

I get it. You don't like the fact that you ended up looking like a complete fool. I get that you will say anything you can to try and avoid being wrong, no matter the circumstance. I get that you couldn't even read and comprehend basic paragraph formatting, but instead, insisted that I was being intellectually dishonest.

I even took the time to explain why you were wrong, and you still made accusations about me. Finally, I basicaly drew you a freaking map explaining everything in third grade terms and it appears that you finally understood that you were wrong about that issue, but instead of ever coming out and admitting it, you just completely dropped the matter and never commented on it again.

124nic8

11-05-2011, 07:47 PM

Demosthenes9

11-05-2011, 08:02 PM

That's only cause you continue to erroneously believe that saying somthing doesn't happen is the same as saying it never happens.

I'm sure no one will ever disuade you of that belief no matter how much it is contradicted by general colloquialism. Cause you've glommed onto it and cannot admit to being wrong. Too much emotional investment.

And again, you saying "isn't the same as saying that it NEVER happens" is trying to portray it as some statistical anomaly. You know, the "exception to the rule".

The only problem is that in both instances, I wasn't talking about exceptions. You can go to many very cold places across the globe and yes, it does snow there.

TRNT

11-05-2011, 08:07 PM

And as was frakking demonstrated in that thread, it does indeed snow in LOTS and LOTS of places that have very low temps.

And yes, some grass does indeed naturally grow in the Sahara desert, contrary to your mistaken opinion.

Cows having four legs ? That would be an extreme anomaly that would only occur if A: something happened to a cow that led to the loss of a leg, or B: a gene mutation leading to a birth defect.

Now, is some grass growing in the Sahara desert an anomoly ? No. Is snow falling in lots and logs of really cold places an anomoly ? The answer here is NO as well.

The simple fact of the matter is that Nic made a statement that was WRONG, I pointed out that he was WRONG. Your silly ass jumped in and made a number of really stupid statements and you were shown to be WRONG as well.

I get it. You don't like the fact that you ended up looking like a complete fool. I get that you will say anything you can to try and avoid being wrong, no matter the circumstance. I get that you couldn't even read and comprehend basic paragraph formatting, but instead, insisted that I was being intellectually dishonest.

I even took the time to explain why you were wrong, and you still made accusations about me. Finally, I basicaly drew you a freaking map explaining everything in third grade terms and it appears that you finally understood that you were wrong about that issue, but instead of ever coming out and admitting it, you just completely dropped the matter and never commented on it again.
A few things:

1. This was also a kinda test. I wanted to see if for the umpteenth time you will repeat what you have already said several times. And you did. Good for you. Now .... please teach me ... the claim that when a logical device/technique is used improperly, the technique is/becomes a logical fallacy, does that principle only apply to Ad Hominem and RAA, or does it apply to all logical devices/techniques?

2. Recall, I mentioned this phenomenon that a person would criticize someone for X, and then soon after would commit X? So just a few minutes ago DF accused a poster of knowing he is wrong but would not admit it. And then like a teen-age cheer leader in short skirt you jumped and cheer-led him. Fine. So why don't you fess up? I know you know you are wrong. So many others have told you directly and indirectly (Hi PB:)) that you are wrong. Instead of this charade of saying you would no longer answer questions, why don't you agree that you misspoke? No big deal.

3. Recall the discussion about whether consenting to having sex is the same as consenting to pregnancy? Remember that I accused you of making things up as you went along? You are doing it again. First you implied that saying "it does not snow in very low temperatures" is an absolute statement and must mean that it cannot ever snow in low temps. Then I presented you with the statements "cows have four legs" and "grass does not grow in the Sahara." So first you ignored the cow statement and jumped on the grass one and started a series of nonessential posts on the grass in Sahara. So I kept pushing for a response on the cow thing and you kept ignoring me. Now finally you decided you will make up things as you go along and invoked this "anomaly" thang? Come on! Does or does not the statement "cows have four legs" mean ever single cow must have four legs. Same with grass in the Sahara and snow in very low temps, albeit at different levels. Come on! Fess up.

Demosthenes9

11-05-2011, 08:21 PM

A few things:

1. This was also a kinda test. I wanted to see if for the umpteenth time you will repeat what you have already said several times. And you did. Good for you. Now .... please teach me ... the claim that when a logical device/technique is used improperly, the technique is/becomes a logical fallacy, does that principle only apply to Ad Hominem and RAA, or does it apply to all logical devices/techniques?

And as I have stated, you have no actual understanding of logical fallacies, so it's pointless to develop a further discussion with you on this.

2. Recall, I mentioned this phenomenon that a person would criticize someone for X, and then soon after would commit X? So just a few minutes ago DF accused a poster of knowing he is wrong but would not admit it. And then like a teen-age cheer leader in short skirt you jumped and cheer-led him. Fine. So why don't you fess up? I know you know you are wrong. So many others have told you directly and indirectly (Hi PB:)) that you are wrong. Instead of this charade of saying you would no longer answer questions, why don't you agree that you misspoke? No big deal.

Actually, YOU are the only one who has told me that I'm wrong, and as we have seen, you knowledge of the subject is more than highly suspect. In case I wasn't clear before, you have absolutely no frakking understanding of logical fallacies, as has been demonstrated time and time again.

3. Recall the discussion about whether consenting to having sex is the same as consenting to pregnancy? Remember that I accused you of making things up as you went along? You are doing it again. First you implied that saying "it does not snow in very low temperatures" is an absolute statement and must mean that it cannot ever snow in low temps. Then I presented you with the statements "cows have four legs" and "grass does not grow in the Sahara." So first you ignored the cow statement and jumped on the grass one and started a series of nonessential posts on the grass in Sahara. So I kept pushing for a response on the cow thing and you kept ignoring me. Now finally you decided you will make up things as you go along and invoked this "anomaly" thang? Come on! Does or does not the statement "cows have four legs" mean ever single cow must have four legs. Same with grass in the Sahara and snow in very low temps, albeit at different levels. Come on! Fess up.

No, the first statement was "it does not snow when it's very cold". It was made by Nic. Guess what ? That statement is wrong.

You then stepped in, demonstrated your ignorance by basically saying "what are you going to do, deny that grass doesn't grow in the Sahara" ?

And guess what ? You were wrong about that. There are certain grasses that does grow in many places in the Sahara, and that's without including in oases.

Now, look at your last statement/question/whatever you want to call it. You are equating "cows have 4 legs" with "grass doesn't grow in the Sahara" and "It doesn't snow in very low temps", as if they are all the same.

As I said, if you find a cow that doesn't have 4 legs, that IS an anomaly. Do you know what that is ? Or do I need to explain that to you as well ?

Grasses growing in the Sahara isn't an anomaly. It's just something that YOU did NOT KNOW.

Snow falling in places where it is really cold isn't an anomaly either.

TRNT

11-06-2011, 06:44 AM

And as I have stated, you have no actual understanding of logical fallacies, ...

... you knowledge of the subject is more than highly suspect. In case I wasn't clear before, you have absolutely no frakking understanding of logical fallacies, ...

See, again you are trying to live up to your self-proclaimed rep.

You do not believe the above just as much as you do not believe that RAA when used improperly becomes a logical fallacy -- your stubbornly insisting the contrary notwithstanding.

Demosthenes9

11-06-2011, 10:06 AM

See, again you are trying to live up to your self-proclaimed rep.

You do not believe the above just as much as you do not believe that RAA when used improperly becomes a logical fallacy -- your stubbornly insisting the contrary notwithstanding.

Ummm, huh ???

Tell you what TRNT, instead of you trying to be slick and playing a game of "gotcha", why don't you go ahead and just state your belief/understanding on the subject of RAA or whatever it is that you are wanting to talk about ?

TRNT

11-06-2011, 10:41 AM

Ummm, huh ???

Tell you what TRNT, instead of you trying to be slick and playing a game of "gotcha", why don't you go ahead and just state your belief/understanding on the subject of RAA or whatever it is that you are wanting to talk about ?BTW: did you realize that I have been trying to use RAA in order to show that your understating of logical fallacies in general and RAA in particular is wrong?

Please simply answer this simple question: is your understanding that if you apply a logical devise/technique improperly that that makes the logical device/technique that you used a logical fallacy or does that principle/belief/claim only applies to RAA and Ad Hominem?

See, I am using RAA here. I am trying to show that if we accept your position, it leads to absurd conclusions. That is, since all logical devices/techniques/methods can be used is an improper way, that all legitimate logical device/techniques/methods are also at the same time logical fallacies. But since you are smart enough to know that you are about to be shown you are badly wrong on this, you have decided not to answer/engage anymore.

Now, I realize that you have decided your best bet is to pretend I am this nincompoop who understand NO logic and therefore you will no longer answer/engage on this matter. Fine. OK. Just answer this: is it your claim that this particular question of mine has EVER been discussed by us or specifically answered by you?

Demosthenes9

11-06-2011, 10:48 AM

BTW: did you realize that I have been trying to use RAA in order to show that your understating of logical fallacies in general and RAA in particular is wrong?

Umm, no, but perhaps that's because it's such a piss poor attempt ??

Please simply answer this simple question: is your understanding that if you apply a logical devise/technique improperly that that makes the logical device/technique that you used a logical fallacy or does that principle/belief/claim only applies to RAA and Ad Hominem?

Haven't thought about it.

See, I am using RAA here. I am trying to show that if we accept your position, it leads to absurd conclusions. That is, since all logical devices/techniques/methods can be used is an improper way, that all legitimate logical device/techniques/methods are also at the same time logical fallacies. But since you are smart enough to know that you are about to be shown you are badly wrong on this, you have decided not to answer/engage anymore.

here's one problem with your statement, which is the reason for part of your confusion:

since all logical devices/techniques/methods can be used is an improper way, that all legitimate logical device/techniques/methods are also at the same time logical fallacies.

let's supposed that I do say that yes, all logical devices, IF USED IMPROPERLY, CAN BE logical fallacies. Let's just take that as a given. You equate that to meaning that "all logical devices ARE logical fallacies." That would be incorrect. The statement would be "All logical devices CAN be logical fallacies, IF used incorrectly".

Now, I realize that you have decided your best bet is to pretend I am this nincompoop who understand NO logic and therefore you will no longer answer/engage on this matter. Fine. OK. Just answer this: is it your claim that this particular question of mine has EVER been discussed by us or specifically answered by you?

Oh, TRNT, I don't have to PRETEND on this one. You DON'T understand logical fallacies, as has been previously evidenced.

TRNT

11-06-2011, 12:49 PM

Haven't thought about it.

Then get back to me when you have.

Meanwhile I am sure rather than shutting your pie hole on this subject until you have "thought about it", you will continue to spout ignorance on this list.

You've got be you and live up to your self-proclaimed rep.

How sad.

TRNT

11-06-2011, 12:52 PM

let's supposed that I do say that yes, all logical devices, IF USED IMPROPERLY, CAN BE logical fallacies. Let's just take that as a given. You equate that to meaning that "all logical devices ARE logical fallacies." That would be incorrect. The statement would be "All logical devices CAN be logical fallacies, IF used incorrectly".

If I added "also" to my statement, would that please you, Mr. Logic? And that last clause "IF used incorrectly", though not incorrect is not necessary.

124nic8

11-06-2011, 01:55 PM

TRNT

11-06-2011, 02:52 PM

And again, you saying "isn't the same as saying that it NEVER happens" is trying to portray it as some statistical anomaly. You know, the "exception to the rule".

The only problem is that in both instances, I wasn't talking about exceptions. You can go to many very cold places across the globe and yes, it does snow there.You are wrong. You are very wrong. Saying "it does not snow in very low temps" does not mean it NEVER snows in very low temps. I gave you the example of "cows have four legs" hoping that you would see the error of your ways. After ignoring that for a few days until you could come up with some crappy answer, you finally invoked that cows with less then 4 legs are anomalies and that is why the same does not apply to snow and low temps. And now you are using the term "anomalies" peppered all over your answers.

OK, here try this for size: "Americans love baseball." Do you now/still claim that therefore every single American must love baseball or that those who do not are anomalies?

Come on. Try and be honest for once. Stop the travel on this wrong road no matter how far you have traveled along it.

vaultaddict

11-06-2011, 02:54 PM

Anyone have a link to the Herman Cain is a bad bad man thread?

Demosthenes9

11-06-2011, 03:21 PM

The whole point is that heavy snow is NOT an indicator of abnormally cold temps.

hey, you finally got it right! If you had said this (or something similar) to start with, I wouldn't have questioned it.

Heavy snowfall isn't an indicator of abnormal cold, NEITHER does it indicate that it isn't abnormally cold.

Demosthenes9

11-06-2011, 03:28 PM

You are wrong. You are very wrong. Saying "it does not snow in very low temps" does not mean it NEVER snows in very low temps. I gave you the example of "cows have four legs" hoping that you would see the error of your ways. After ignoring that for a few days until you could come up with some crappy answer, you finally invoked that cows with less then 4 legs are anomalies and that is why the same does not apply to snow and low temps. And now you are using the term "anomalies" peppered all over your answers.

OK, here try this for size: "Americans love baseball." Do you now/still claim that therefore every single American must love baseball or that those who do not are anomalies?

Come on. Try and be honest for once. Stop the travel on this wrong road no matter how far you have traveled along it.

Saying "it DOES NOT SNOW in very cold temps" rather clearly means that you don't think it snows once the temp gets very cold, AND that if it does, it's some kind of freak occurence.

As for "Americans love baseball", that's a sweeping generalization that also IS NOT TRUE. I can't stand watching baseball and I know quite a lot of other people who don't care for it either.

Demosthenes9

11-06-2011, 03:30 PM

If I added "also" to my statement, would that please you, Mr. Logic? And that last clause "IF used incorrectly", though not incorrect is not necessary.

I'd have to see the statement. As to your last point, yes, "IF used incorrectly" isn't exactly necessary, but it does explain when the logical device would be a fallacy.

TRNT

11-06-2011, 04:19 PM

As for "Americans love baseball", that's a sweeping generalization that also IS NOT TRUE. I can't stand watching baseball and I know quite a lot of other people who don't care for it either.Ok, so "Americans love baseball" is a false statement.

How about these statements:

- The French love wine and cheese.
- Canadians love ice hockey.
- Mexicans speak Spanish.

Now I know you will bravely double down on you earlier wrong position and valiantly declare that all the above statement are not true. That is why I kept this one for last:

- In 2008 Americans voted for Obama.

Now let' see what excuse you have for this one. I know you are very good at making things up as we go along. (Psst: claim that that was an "anomaly." :lol:)

skiman

11-06-2011, 04:36 PM

the sexual tension in here is so thick you can cut it with a knife

Demosthenes9

11-06-2011, 04:40 PM

Ok, so "Americans love baseball" is a false statement.

How about these statements:

- The French love wine and cheese.
- Canadians love ice hockey.
- Mexicans speak Spanish.

Now I know you will bravely double down on you earlier wrong position and valiantly declare that all the above statement are not true. That is why I kept this one for last:

- In 2008 Americans voted for Obama.

Now let' see what excuse you have for this one. I know you are very good at making things up as we go along. (Psst: claim that that was an "anomaly." :lol:)

Yet more evidence that I have been absolutely correct all along in my assertion that you absolutely have NO FREAKING UNDERSTANDING of logical fallacies, and that it's damned near pointless to even discuss the subject with you.

The first three statements are also examples of generalizations as you can find plenty of of French who do not like wine or cheese, plenty of Canadians who do not like hockey, and yes, plenty of Mexicans who do not speak Spanish.

As for your grand "gotcha" that you were saving up for last, just to really make your case, let's look at it.

In 2008 Americans voted for Obama

This would be another generalization OR a fallacy of equivocation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Equivocation is classified as both a formal and informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words.

vaultaddict

11-06-2011, 04:51 PM

the sexual tension in here is so thick you can cut it with a knife

quite well stated

so anyhow, Herman Cain.

It appears that he is a recipient of affirmative action as well as a past supporter of it.

This position is inconsistent with the conservative position, in my estimation.

I have yet to see many conservatives speak out against it, but here is one,,,,

It is distasteful to ask, but would Cain's rocket to the top have happened without the special treatment and considerations given him as a result of affirmative action? Many conservatives are convinced that Barack Obama's rise was fueled by racial preferences, so they cannot blink in the face of the same possibility working in Herman Cain's favor.
Affirmative action had recently become the law of the land. Big corporations were under pressure to prove they were complying. True conservatives have never accepted the premise of affirmative action -- that you can reach equality by suppressing the rights of others by government edict. Yet Herman Cain defended affirmative action in debates and on his campaign website (http://slickdeals.net/?&u2=http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Herman_Cain_Civil_Rights.htm) [ontheissues.org (http://slickdeals.net/?&u2=http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Herman_Cain_Civil_Rights.htm)] in his 2004 campaign for senator.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/charges_against_cain_cannot_be_ignored.html#ixzz1cyWEKE6o (http://slickdeals.net/?&u2=http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/charges_against_cain_cannot_be_ignored.html#ixzz1cyWEKE6o)

TRNT

11-06-2011, 04:55 PM

Yet more evidence that I have been absolutely correct all along in my assertion that you absolutely have NO FREAKING UNDERSTANDING of logical fallacies, and that it's damned near pointless to even discuss the subject with you.

The first three statements are also examples of generalizations as you can find plenty of of French who do not like wine or cheese, plenty of Canadians who do not like hockey, and yes, plenty of Mexicans who do not speak Spanish.

As for your grand "gotcha" that you were saving up for last, just to really make your case, let's look at it.

This would be another generalization OR a fallacy of equivocation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation Not only these are not false statements, they have their own designation: generic statements.

Here is an article (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201011/the-power-generic-statements) about the power of generic statements in politics.

BTW: here is a USA Today article addressing a question that you have already declared to be false.

Why Americans love baseball (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-10-20-baseball_x.htm)

----------------
ETA

Look at this paper that discusses generic statements and contrast them with universal statements.

Paper (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCIQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmyweb.uiowa.edu%2Fbutchvar%2FGENERIC%2520STATEMENTS-AND-ANTIREALISM.doc&ei=ty63ToHOGcmNgwejgYGwBA&usg=AFQjCNEkAfoTxL6SoxWSVaONCfYC5Bg1rA&sig2=54NnbDwuaASq4CrWSGmHqw)

Abstract
The standard arguments for antirealism are densely abstract, often enigmatic, and thus unpersuasive. The ubiquity and irreducibility of what linguists call generic statements provides a clear argument from a specific and readily understandable case. We think and talk about the world as necessarily subject to generalization. But the chief vehicles of generalization are generic statements, typically of the form “Fs are G,” not universal statements, typically of the form “All Fs are G.” Universal statements themselves are usually intended and understood as though they were only generic. Even if there are universal facts, as Russell held, there are no generic facts. There is no genericity in the world as it is “in-itself.” There is genericity in it only as it is “for-us.”

Demosthenes9

11-06-2011, 06:26 PM

Not only these are not false statements, they have their own designation: generic statements.

Here is an article (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201011/the-power-generic-statements) about the power of generic statements in politics.

Doesn't matter if they do have their own designation. As to the article you just linked, it actually supports what I have said.

Think about this. It means that people are willing to use generic sentences to describe a category when only 50% of the category members have that property. But, when people hear a sentence with a generic in it, they assume that almost all of the category members have that property.

These results really matter. They mean that when we hear an ad with a generic statement in it, we assume that it applies to almost all of the members of the category being described. Hearing an ad that mentions Democrats, Republicans, or the Tea Party can be misleadingly persuasive by making people believe that almost all of them have a common set of beliefs.

Why would it be "MISLEADINGLY persuasive" ? Because it is UNTRUE, FALSE, NOT VALID.

BTW: here is a USA Today article addressing a question that you have already declared to be false.

Why Americans love baseball (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-10-20-baseball_x.htm)

And ? Are you trying to claim that Usatoday or other newspaper articles never use logical fallacies ????

----------------
ETA

Look at this paper that discusses generic statements and contrast them with universal statements.

Paper (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCIQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmyweb.uiowa.edu%2Fbutchvar%2FGENERIC%2520STATEMENTS-AND-ANTIREALISM.doc&ei=ty63ToHOGcmNgwejgYGwBA&usg=AFQjCNEkAfoTxL6SoxWSVaONCfYC5Bg1rA&sig2=54NnbDwuaASq4CrWSGmHqw)

Abstract
The standard arguments for antirealism are densely abstract, often enigmatic, and thus unpersuasive. The ubiquity and irreducibility of what linguists call generic statements provides a clear argument from a specific and readily understandable case. We think and talk about the world as necessarily subject to generalization. But the chief vehicles of generalization are generic statements, typically of the form “Fs are G,” not universal statements, typically of the form “All Fs are G.” Universal statements themselves are usually intended and understood as though they were only generic. Even if there are universal facts, as Russell held, there are no generic facts. There is no genericity in the world as it is “in-itself.” There is genericity in it only as it is “for-us.”

I'll get to your paper in a minute. Not going to comment this second because UNLIKE YOU, I don't argue about presented items when I have yet to read them.

Demosthenes9

11-06-2011, 06:33 PM

----------------
ETA

Look at this paper that discusses generic statements and contrast them with universal statements.

Paper (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCIQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmyweb.uiowa.edu%2Fbutchvar%2FGENERIC%2520STATEMENTS-AND-ANTIREALISM.doc&ei=ty63ToHOGcmNgwejgYGwBA&usg=AFQjCNEkAfoTxL6SoxWSVaONCfYC5Bg1rA&sig2=54NnbDwuaASq4CrWSGmHqw)

Abstract
The standard arguments for antirealism are densely abstract, often enigmatic, and thus unpersuasive. The ubiquity and irreducibility of what linguists call generic statements provides a clear argument from a specific and readily understandable case. We think and talk about the world as necessarily subject to generalization. But the chief vehicles of generalization are generic statements, typically of the form “Fs are G,” not universal statements, typically of the form “All Fs are G.” Universal statements themselves are usually intended and understood as though they were only generic. Even if there are universal facts, as Russell held, there are no generic facts. There is no genericity in the world as it is “in-itself.” There is genericity in it only as it is “for-us.”

On second thought, I'm not about to read through an entire 31 page paper from some person/student at the Univ. of Iowa.

If there is some part of the paper that you feel is pertinent, go ahead and present it. Even then, it's still just the opinion of said person from the Univ. of Iowa.

mohater

11-06-2011, 07:22 PM

vaultaddict

11-06-2011, 08:34 PM

larrymoencurly

11-06-2011, 10:42 PM

larrymoencurly

11-06-2011, 10:44 PM

Herman Cain going down will be the best possible thing for Ron Paul.
You're saying Ron Paul likes to watch. How do you know? (No specifics, please) :lol:

larrymoencurly

11-06-2011, 10:51 PM

If there was anything substantial to it, they never would have settled or would have went against court order by now.
And the fact they settled twice proves the charges were twice as unsubstantial.

I don't think you understand how trapped and humiliated some women can feel in situations like that. The accuser becomes the accused.

larrymoencurly

11-06-2011, 11:31 PM

Why are people saying "no one settles without proof"...companies settle these ridiculous allegations ALL THE TIME. It is cheaper to just pay off the accuser in most cases than take it to court no matter how wrong you are. It's the flip side that is accurate...had he actually done something reprehensible wouldn't they have wanted him to pay (and not the National Restaurant Association)?

Also...this isn't settlement if it wasn't taken to court and settled out of court...it's an agreement (possibly at the end of employment). Not so subtle difference.
Then what's a settlement agreement, and how does it differ from a plain settlement or a plain agreement? Here's an example of one: link (http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/verisign/ICANN-VRSN-settlement-agreement-2005.pdf)

another: link (http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/trapp/settlement.html)

and a third: link (https://dslspeedsettlement.com/Pdfs/SettlementAgreement.pdf)

vaultaddict

11-07-2011, 04:33 AM

... because many articles state so. Do your own searching.

no articles that I've read claim that

larrymoencurly

11-07-2011, 04:51 AM

Does everyone here understand what a non-disclosure agreement is?

There's something about non-disclosure that means "not talking" and "not disclosing".

Cain will not breech the settlement. It's as easy as that.
Do you actually believe you're defending a person whose prime concern here is the ethics of honoring a contract?

mohater

11-07-2011, 04:51 AM

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/herman-cain-bound-confidentiality-agreement-law-experts/story?id=14865052#.TrfTdEMr2nA

Herman Cain May be Breaking Confidentiality Agreement, Say Experts

You guys are getting om a tizzy over nothing.

Regardless of what Cain said or what the women allege, this issue is closed. They took the money and left. This is a closed, non-issue.

Do you actually believe you're defending a person whose prime concern here is the ethics of honoring a contract?

I'm not defending anyone. I'm saying this is a non-issue. I do not know Cain, I don't know anything about him outside of what we all know.

You silly political partisan hacks are all over this as though he was convicted. This never saw trail, this is closed, this is settled.

larrymoencurly

11-07-2011, 05:00 AM

Do you actually believe you're defending a person whose prime concern here is the ethics of honoring a contract?
Regardless of what Cain said or what the women allege, this issue is closed. They took the money and left. This is a closed, non-issue.

I'm not defending anyone. I'm saying this is a non-issue. I do not know Cain, I don't know anything about him outside of what we all know.

You silly political partisan hacks are all over this as though he was convicted. This never saw trail, this is closed, this is settled.
What do you think of those women because they "took the money and left"? Don't pretend and say you don't know enough to have an opinion.

And don't call me partisan about this when you have absolutely no basis to do so, and merely criticizing someone like Herman Cain for doing what he did is not an example of being partisan. I'm do partisan that I didn't vote for Bill Clinton in 1996 for a very similar reason.

vaultaddict

11-07-2011, 05:10 AM

So Herman Cain plays the race card repeatedly.

How does that play with the base?

Also, that link doesn't claim he signed any confidentiality agreement.

tightwad

11-07-2011, 05:18 AM

And don't call me partisan about this when you have absolutely no basis to do so, and merely criticizing someone like Herman Cain for doing what he did is not an example of being partisan. I'm do partisan that I didn't vote for Bill Clinton in 1996 for a very similar reason.

I am not calling you partisan but I think it is worth mentioning that from the information available the difference between Herman Cains actions and Bill Clintons actions are quite severe...there is a large difference between saying something inappropriate and DOING something inappropriate.

loop610bob

11-07-2011, 05:37 AM

I am not calling you partisan but I think it is worth mentioning that from the information available the difference between Herman Cains actions and Bill Clintons actions are quite severe...there is a large difference between saying something inappropriate and DOING something inappropriate.
One would also find a degree in separation between a wanted and unwanted advance.

TRNT

11-07-2011, 05:52 AM

Doesn't matter if they do have their own designation. As to the article you just linked, it actually supports what I have said.

Why would it be "MISLEADINGLY persuasive" ? Because it is UNTRUE, FALSE, NOT VALID.

How does that support your position? It says "we assume that it applies to almost all of the members". Fine. Here, what if we use when it does applies to almost all of the members? (Or more accurately, what if we use it when it applies to a huge majority of members?)

Claiming such statement is only valid if it applies to all members is just inanity of a proportion that only you are fond/capable of.

TRNT

11-07-2011, 05:57 AM

Does everyone here understand what a non-disclosure agreement is?

There's something about non-disclosure that means "not talking" and "not disclosing".

Cain will not breech the settlement. It's as easy as that.

Get a life.But he could release the other party(ies) if he wanted to. The question is why is he not? He is not applying for a janitor job; he wants to be the leader of the free world. If he has sometime to hide, then maybe he should apply for that janitor job.

This is at least the second time you are saying this and the second time I tell he can release others. But somehow you act as if you do not even acknowledge a comment, that people would not realize that it was made.

andyfico

11-07-2011, 05:58 AM

So if you got nothing of substance, I'm done here. :wave:
If you can't roll with the big dogs.....

mohater

11-07-2011, 06:18 AM

But he could release the other party(ies) if he wanted to. The question is why is he not? He is not applying for a janitor job; he wants to be the leader of the free world. If he has sometime to hide, then maybe he should apply for that janitor job.

This is at least the second time you are saying this and the second time I tell he can release others. But somehow you act as if you do not even acknowledge a comment, that people would not realize that it was made.

...

...

WOW...

The National Restaurant Association (NRA) paid the settlement, not Cain. Cain is bound by the terms of the agreement through the NRA.

He is not in a position to release anything, the NRA is. On top of it, the NRA might not even be privy to release if an insurance policy was used for the payout, then the insurance co needs to also release as it might need to dole out more cash in the event another lawsuit on the matter comes out.

larrymoencurly

11-07-2011, 06:33 AM

I am not calling you partisan but I think it is worth mentioning that from the information available the difference between Herman Cains actions and Bill Clintons actions are quite severe...there is a large difference between saying something inappropriate and DOING something inappropriate.Apparently Bill Clinton did the same thing to Paula Jones, but the payout of the settlement was much higher, as would be expected for a sleazy cad governor versus a sleazy cad lobby association president.

larrymoencurly

11-07-2011, 06:41 AM

The National Restaurant Association (NRA) paid the settlement, not Cain. Cain is bound by the terms of the agreement through the NRA.

He is not in a position to release anything, the NRA is. On top of it, the NRA might not even be privy to release if an insurance policy was used for the payout, then the insurance co needs to also release as it might need to dole out more cash in the event another lawsuit on the matter comes out.
America needs the kind of moral courage that makes Reverend Herman Cain hide behind nondisclosure clauses that benefit him.

TRNT

11-07-2011, 06:43 AM

...

...

WOW...

The National Restaurant Association (NRA) paid the settlement, not Cain. Cain is bound by the terms of the agreement through the NRA.

He is not in a position to release anything, the NRA is. On top of it, the NRA might not even be privy to release if an insurance policy was used for the payout, then the insurance co needs to also release as it might need to dole out more cash in the event another lawsuit on the matter comes out.
You are mistaken in this sense: if indeed he signed the agreement, then this is a three way agreement. All three sides are bound by it and all three could individually release the other two. Meaning that if Cain releases the other two, it means he will not sue them if they broke the agreement. Yes, that release does not mean that Cain can break the agreement with no repercussions form the other two. But if the other two sides also release the other two, then all three sides can talk about it.

Now ..... the question still arises as to why Cain is not releasing the others from their agreement? Does he have something to hide?

mohater

11-07-2011, 07:08 AM

Do you not understand your comment?

How do you prove a negative? How do you prove something didn't happen?

Cain releasing the women (if that's even an option) can do nothing beneficial for him. Nothing good can come out of it.

What is there to talk about? The women took the money and signed the agreement. It's over, closed.

Ryu-bom

11-07-2011, 08:07 AM

High-profile discrimination attorney Gloria Allred says another woman has come forward accusing Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain of sexual harassment.

Another woman..... Sucks to be Cain right about now

WindySummer

11-07-2011, 08:35 AM

High-profile discrimination attorney Gloria Allred says another woman has come forward accusing Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain of sexual harassment.Not to worry, O'Reilly and his "Spin Zone" will save poor Herman.

Lilian

11-07-2011, 08:43 AM

Can you Herman Cain haters stop bashing him?

The biggest service you can do for Obama is getting everyone to vote for Cain in the primaries.

TRNT

11-07-2011, 08:57 AM

On second thought, I'm not about to read through an entire 31 page paper from some person/student at the Univ. of Iowa.

If there is some part of the paper that you feel is pertinent, go ahead and present it. Even then, it's still just the opinion of said person from the Univ. of Iowa.Then read this short abstract presented below. None of these claim generic statements are false or fallacious. Here is another angle: finish the following sentence "Americans love ..... " By now you know that millions of people use millions of statements like that. But now that you are in your reverse thinking mode, now that you feel cornered, there is no way in hell you wold admit that you were wrong. (BTW: instead of creating new posts, I will update this post with new references as I find them.)

LINK (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01126.x/abstract)

Abstract
Generic statements (e.g., “Birds lay eggs”) express generalizations about categories. In this paper, we hypothesized that there is a paradoxical asymmetry at the core of generic meaning, such that these sentences have extremely strong implications but require little evidence to be judged true. Four experiments confirmed the hypothesized asymmetry: Participants interpreted novel generics such as “Lorches have purple feathers” as referring to nearly all lorches, but they judged the same novel generics to be true given a wide range of prevalence levels (e.g., even when only 10% or 30% of lorches had purple feathers). A second hypothesis, also confirmed by the results, was that novel generic sentences about dangerous or distinctive properties would be more acceptable than generic sentences that were similar but did not have these connotations. In addition to clarifying important aspects of generics’ meaning, these findings are applicable to a range of real-world processes such as stereotyping and political discourse.

ETA:

Dogs are friendly animals. (But Demo is gonna say that statement is a fallacious statement.)
Sheep are herd animals. (Unless Demo gets his hands on that statement.)
Mountain lions live in errr mountainous regions. :)

-----

LINK (http://books.google.com/books?id=cSsdRTuHeRIC&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170&dq=definition+of+%22generic+statements%22&source=bl&ots=3CY57hrAyJ&sig=m_ste8gLnZMYEeiZAuJDnA_hNTA&hl=en&ei=6S64ToGvDMaI2gXzlenMDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=definition%20of%20%22generic%20statements%22&f=false)

Excerpt:

The statement "Birds fly," for example, is considered true, even though penguins, emus, and ostriches cannot fly. In contrast "All birds fly" is false.

shhaggy

11-07-2011, 09:24 AM

...

...

WOW...

The National Restaurant Association (NRA) paid the settlement, not Cain. Cain is bound by the terms of the agreement through the NRA.

He is not in a position to release anything, the NRA is. On top of it, the NRA might not even be privy to release if an insurance policy was used for the payout, then the insurance co needs to also release as it might need to dole out more cash in the event another lawsuit on the matter comes out.

Fair, but here's what I don't understand: why isn't Cain himself bound by the very same confidentiality agreement? Why is it that he's allowed to attack the character of his accusers and defend himself with his version of the events but these women can't say a word? He should be forced to keep his mouth shut too, if they're still bound by this agreement. Confidentiality agreements are designed to keep the matter confidential, not to allow one party to smear the other. They should all have to keep their mouths shut.

124nic8

11-07-2011, 10:48 AM

hey, you finally got it right! If you had said this (or something similar) to start with, I wouldn't have questioned it.

Heavy snowfall isn't an indicator of abnormal cold, NEITHER does it indicate that it isn't abnormally cold.

Actually it does indicate that it's not abnormally cold because almost every time there is heavy snow, the temp is above 25 degrees. Because really cold air does not hold much moisture.

mohater

11-07-2011, 10:51 AM

Fair, but here's what I don't understand: why isn't Cain himself bound by the very same confidentiality agreement? Why is it that he's allowed to attack the character of his accusers and defend himself with his version of the events but these women can't say a word? He should be forced to keep his mouth shut too, if they're still bound by this agreement. Confidentiality agreements are designed to keep the matter confidential, not to allow one party to smear the other. They should all have to keep their mouths shut.

He's not attacking their character. He says the allegations are false and the issue is closed/settled. He isn't saying "buncha thieving whores just going after a successful black man". He's trying to move beyond the issue and people keep asking him.

I'm not defending him in any way. If the allegations are true, then he's garbage. That being said, it's still a closed issue.

WindySummer

11-07-2011, 10:55 AM

The National Restaurant Association (NRA) paid the settlement, not Cain. Cain is bound by the terms of the agreement through the NRA.As president of the NRA, he signed off on the settlement.
He's a grown man, no one put a gun to his head.

Why isn't Cain himself bound by the very same confidentiality agreement? Why is it that he's allowed to attack the character of his accusers and defend himself with his version of the events but these women can't say a word? Maybe Cain negotiated an additional settlement w/ the woman "who stood by her claim"?

124nic8

11-07-2011, 10:57 AM

TRNT

11-07-2011, 11:00 AM

TRNT

11-07-2011, 11:02 AM

The NRA has released the women from their confidentiality agreements. I imagine the same holds true for Cain if he had one.

This issue is far from done as a qualification (or dis) for POTUS.When did this happen?

All I have heard was that they approved that her attorney release a very limited and specific statement. But no general release.

shhaggy

11-07-2011, 11:03 AM

He's not attacking their character. He says the allegations are false and the issue is closed/settled. He isn't saying "buncha thieving whores just going after a successful black man". He's trying to move beyond the issue and people keep asking him.

I'm not defending him in any way. If the allegations are true, then he's garbage. That being said, it's still a closed issue.

He was allowed to describe in detail his point of view on an allegation (he claimed he only commented on the accuser's height), and yet they're still held back by a confidentiality agreement? Further, calling someone a liar IS an attack on their character. That's not illegal, but if it related to an issue under a confidentiality agreement, then it IS wrong that only one side get to breach that agreement.

124nic8

11-07-2011, 11:07 AM

When did this happen?

All I have heard was that they approved that her attorney release a very limited and specific statement. But no general release.

Don't know exactly when it happened but I heard it on ABC News over the weekend.

dynamite

11-07-2011, 11:33 AM

From Yahoo forums, too funny:

Cain's new bumper sticker....

"CAIN 2012 ...where da white women at..??.."

andyfico

11-07-2011, 11:36 AM

From Yahoo forums, too funny:

Cain's new bumper sticker....

"CAIN 2012 ...where da white women at..??.."
:facepalm:

Lilian

11-07-2011, 11:39 AM

:facepalm:

Agreed. It wasn't white women. It was black women.

Demosthenes9

11-07-2011, 11:40 AM

Then read this short abstract presented below. None of these claim generic statements are false or fallacious. Here is another angle: finish the following sentence "Americans love ..... " By now you know that millions of people use millions of statements like that. But now that you are in your reverse thinking mode, now that you feel cornered, there is no way in hell you wold admit that you were wrong. (BTW: instead of creating new posts, I will update this post with new references as I find them.)

Oh wow, MILLIONS of people use MILLIONS of statements like that ???? Really ? And this of course PROVES that the statements are CORRECT and VALID ?

Hell, you make statements here on this forum EVERY FREAKING DAY that are untrue, invalid, and false.

LINK (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01126.x/abstract)

Abstract
Generic statements (e.g., “Birds lay eggs”) express generalizations about categories. In this paper, we hypothesized that there is a paradoxical asymmetry at the core of generic meaning, such that these sentences have extremely strong implications but require little evidence to be judged true. Four experiments confirmed the hypothesized asymmetry: Participants interpreted novel generics such as “Lorches have purple feathers” as referring to nearly all lorches, but they judged the same novel generics to be true given a wide range of prevalence levels (e.g., even when only 10% or 30% of lorches had purple feathers). A second hypothesis, also confirmed by the results, was that novel generic sentences about dangerous or distinctive properties would be more acceptable than generic sentences that were similar but did not have these connotations. In addition to clarifying important aspects of generics’ meaning, these findings are applicable to a range of real-world processes such as stereotyping and political discourse.

Again, this demonstrates that the statements AREN'T TRUE.

ETA:

Dogs are friendly animals. (But Demo is gonna say that statement is a fallacious statement.)
Sheep are herd animals. (Unless Demo gets his hands on that statement.)
Mountain lions live in errr mountainous regions. :)

Really ? You think that "dogs are friendly animals" is a true statement ? Tell you what, why don't you walk up to every single pit bull or doberman that you come across, try to pet them on the head and say "nice doggy".

See how many times you get bitten.

dynamite

11-07-2011, 11:46 AM

Agreed. It wasn't white women. It was black women.

LOL are u telling me Stiffler's mom is black? LMAO

Demosthenes9

11-07-2011, 11:50 AM

How does that support your position? It says "we assume that it applies to almost all of the members". Fine. Here, what if we use when it does applies to almost all of the members? (Or more accurately, what if we use it when it applies to a huge majority of members?)

Claiming such statement is only valid if it applies to all members is just inanity of a proportion that only you are fond/capable of.

Again, I said at the beginning that you wouldn't be able to understand the discussion, and I have once again been proven correct.

A generalization is made. It leads people into believing that the statement is true for even most members of the group, when this IN FACT, IS NOT TRUE.

That's the very reason that the generalization IS a fallacy.

You want to say that general statements are true ? Ok, then let's look at some.

"Black's don't like the cold".
"Women are lousy drivers"
"Women are better at cooking"
"Women aren't good in science and math"
"Whites aren't good at basketball"
"Men can't cook"

Do you want to defend those statements and claim that they are all true ??

Demosthenes9

11-07-2011, 11:55 AM

Actually it does indicate that it's not abnormally cold because almost every time there is heavy snow, the temp is above 25 degrees. Because really cold air does not hold much moisture.

No, it doesn't. You are basing this off of YOUR supposed experience in Chicago. First, I'd have to question "your experience" itself.

Secondly, a couple of snows in Chicago is way too small of a "sample size" to make any determination.

As has been noted, there are parts of Antarctica that average about -15 degrees yet get quite a bit of snow each year, every year.

124nic8

11-07-2011, 12:03 PM

No, it doesn't. You are basing this off of YOUR supposed experience in Chicago. First, I'd have to question "your experience" itself.

Secondly, a couple of snows in Chicago is way too small of a "sample size" to make any determination.

As has been noted, there are parts of Antarctica that average about -15 degrees yet get quite a bit of snow each year, every year.

1. It's not just "a couple of snows." If it were, I might still live there. :D

2. It's established scientific fact that really cold air does not hold much moisture.

3. Citing an acknowleged desert region does not help your case.

4. An average temperature does not tell us how much snow falls when it's really cold cause it can get well above zero there.

5. You should post any follow ups to the appropriate thread cause this is OT here.

Demosthenes9

11-07-2011, 12:03 PM

Don't know exactly when it happened but I heard it on ABC News over the weekend.

I read about it as well.

Done.

WindySummer

11-07-2011, 12:08 PM

NEW YORK—A woman says Republican presidential contender Herman Cain reached under her skirt for her genitals and pushed her head toward his crotch in July 1997.

Sharon Bialek told reporters Monday in New York that she met with Cain to ask about getting her old job back at the National Restaurant Association when the incident happened in Washington. At the time, Cain was chief of a restaurant trade group.

Bialek says that, when she asked Cain what he was doing, Cain said, "You want a job, right?"

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/11/07/woman_accuses_cain_of_reaching_for_genitals/... s/he said, unless there is more forthcoming.

TRNT

11-07-2011, 01:09 PM

Again, I said at the beginning that you wouldn't be able to understand the discussion, and I have once again been proven correct.

A generalization is made. It leads people into believing that the statement is true for even most members of the group, when this IN FACT, IS NOT TRUE.

That's the very reason that the generalization IS a fallacy.

You want to say that general statements are true ? Ok, then let's look at some.

"Black's don't like the cold".
"Women are lousy drivers"
"Women are better at cooking"
"Women aren't good in science and math"
"Whites aren't good at basketball"
"Men can't cook"

Do you want to defend those statements and claim that they are all true ??Now you are hoping playing dumb and resorting to strawman argument would get you out of this corner. How sad but predictable.

I never said all generic statements are true.

My position is/was this: for a generic statement to be true, you need not have it true for all members of it. In fact, that is something did claim. That if one member does not satisfy the statement, the statement is fallacious. Was that not your position? If you now realize you were wrong, no big deal. Just stop insisting on your wrong position.

Lilian

11-07-2011, 01:34 PM

Herman Cain was sexually harassing a WHITE woman?

That isn't gonna go over well with the base....:lol:

Demosthenes9

11-07-2011, 02:07 PM

Now you are hoping playing dumb and resorting to strawman argument would get you out of this corner. How sad but predictable.

I never said all generic statements are true.

My position is/was this: for a generic statement to be true, you need not have it true for all members of it. In fact, that is something did claim. That if one member does not satisfy the statement, the statement is fallacious. Was that not your position? If you now realize you were wrong, no big deal. Just stop insisting on your wrong position.

Oh, so now, generic statements aren't true, unless they are true ????

According to the very sources that YOU presented, there is no actual baseline for determing "true". It talks about how some people will make a "generic" statement if it's only true for 50% of the population, i.e. birds lay eggs.

So, if we could show that 50% of women are lousy drivers, then according to YOUR "LOGIC", that would make the statement "women are lousy drivers" "true".

It's a freaking GENERALIZATION fallacy.

Demosthenes9

11-07-2011, 02:10 PM

... s/he said, unless there is more forthcoming.

I read the release and have to say that I don't believe it at all. I mean, it sounds so completely scripted. I met Cain, I told him I had a boyfriend, he drove me somewhere, he reached under my skirt, I told him "I'm not that kind of girl", he said "you want a job, don't you?", yada, yada, yada.

I mean, is there any cliche that wasn't left out of that statement ??

tequiyotl

11-07-2011, 02:16 PM

A generalization is made. It leads people into believing that the statement is true for even most members of the group, when this IN FACT, IS NOT TRUE.

That's the very reason that the generalization IS a fallacy.

what people assume has no bearing on what actually is. and a fallacy is an argument whose conclusion does not follow from the premises given. those statements you guys are talking about arent arguments, so cannot be logical fallacies. an accident fallacy (which is probably what youre talking about) would be something like:

p1: birds can fly.
p2: a bird with a broken wing is still a bird.
c: therefore, birds with broken wings can fly.

andyfico

11-07-2011, 02:17 PM

I read the release and have to say that I don't believe it at all. I mean, it sounds so completely scripted. I met Cain, I told him I had a boyfriend, he drove me somewhere, he reached under my skirt, I told him "I'm not that kind of girl", he said "you want a job, don't you?", yada, yada, yada.

I mean, is there any cliche that wasn't left out of that statement ??
Did you listen to the press conference? It sounded so planned out and scripted that Hollywood would be proud. I find it odd that she remembered EXACT details (such as clothing) from almost 15 years ago. I also wonder who is paying for her high priced lawyer? I believe this woman was described as a full time single mother so who's footing the bill?

mohater

11-07-2011, 02:17 PM

TRNT

11-07-2011, 02:24 PM

Oh, so now, generic statements aren't true, unless they are true ????

According to the very sources that YOU presented, there is no actual baseline for determing "true". It talks about how some people will make a "generic" statement if it's only true for 50% of the population, i.e. birds lay eggs.

So, if we could show that 50% of women are lousy drivers, then according to YOUR "LOGIC", that would make the statement "women are lousy drivers" "true".

It's a freaking GENERALIZATION fallacy.You are trying to confuse the matter so that later you could say you are not willing to continue this discussion.

Let me ask you to consider the following:

Mexicans speak Spanish.

Do you claim the above statement s fallacious?

If yes, then stop the nonsense about statements which are true for only 51% of the members.

Earlier you said that even if one person does not satisfy the statement (anomalies aside) that the statement is fallacious. Is that still your position?

DJPlayer

11-07-2011, 02:48 PM

I just saw an accuser video.. I saw her standing next to Gloria Allred. I immediately dismissed whatever the woman was saying.. simply b/c she stood next to Gloria Allred. But then again.. she doesn't want anything. But..

"Bialek does not plan to sell her story or file a lawsuit against the Republican candidate for the White House.".

so why is Gloria Allred there? there's no suit.. just an accusation and some press coverage.. If someone w/ a decent amount of money sexually harassed you, Would a person who just lost their job merely walk away broke and penniless, but then pop up 14 years later just to spread the word? If you wait x amount of time I think you basically give up your right to even make claims. I mean 14 years of silence?

vaultaddict

11-07-2011, 02:50 PM

I just saw an accuser video.. I saw her standing next to Gloria Allred. I immediately dismissed whatever the woman was saying.. simply b/c she stood next to Gloria Allred. But then again.. she doesn't want anything. But..

.

so why is Gloria Allred there? there's no suit.. just an accusation and some press coverage.. If someone w/ a decent amount of money sexually harassed you, Would a person who just lost their job merely walk away broke and penniless, but then pop up 14 years later just to spread the word? If you wait x amount of time I think you basically give up your right to even make claims. I mean 14 years of silence?

those seem like valid reasons to dismiss a claim

Dr.Murdoc

11-07-2011, 03:01 PM

Why would this have not come out last time he ran for office?
Thus I call BS.

Dr.Murdoc

11-07-2011, 03:06 PM

Networks Hit Cain Story 50 Times in Less Than Four Days; Ignored Clinton Scandals

http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2011/20111103124000.aspx (http://slickdeals.net/?&u2=http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2011/20111103124000.aspx)

Ryu-bom

11-07-2011, 03:07 PM

I just saw an accuser video.. I saw her standing next to Gloria Allred. I immediately dismissed whatever the woman was saying.. simply b/c she stood next to Gloria Allred. But then again.. she doesn't want anything. But..

.

so why is Gloria Allred there? there's no suit.. just an accusation and some press coverage.. If someone w/ a decent amount of money sexually harassed you, Would a person who just lost their job merely walk away broke and penniless, but then pop up 14 years later just to spread the word? If you wait x amount of time I think you basically give up your right to even make claims. I mean 14 years of silence?

feel the same about Paula Jones.....

Why would this have not come out last time he ran for office?
Thus I call BS.

Cause he's a republican and he's on my side.... rite :wave:

Demosthenes9

11-07-2011, 03:10 PM

what people assume has no bearing on what actually is. and a fallacy is an argument whose conclusion does not follow from the premises given. those statements you guys are talking about arent arguments, so cannot be logical fallacies. an accident fallacy (which is probably what youre talking about) would be something like:

p1: birds can fly.
p2: a bird with a broken wing is still a bird.
c: therefore, birds with broken wings can fly.

This is actually one area of contention wrt fallacies. Say that someone puts forth an actual argument (as opposed to a statement), then you follow with a statement that's a "red herring". Is your statement not a fallacy ? Also, what about a straw man ??

Did you listen to the press conference? It sounded so planned out and scripted that Hollywood would be proud. I find it odd that she remembered EXACT details (such as clothing) from almost 15 years ago. I also wonder who is paying for her high priced lawyer? I believe this woman was described as a full time single mother so who's footing the bill?

Nope, didn't watch/listen to it, read a partial transcript.

Dr.Murdoc

11-07-2011, 03:13 PM

feel the same about Paula Jones.....

Cause he's a republican and he's on my side.... rite :wave:

Sorry don't buy it. It could have come out when he first started to run and had only 6% on the polls.

tequiyotl

11-07-2011, 03:18 PM

This is actually one area of contention wrt fallacies. Say that someone puts forth an actual argument (as opposed to a statement), then you follow with a statement that's a "red herring". Is your statement not a fallacy ? Also, what about a straw man ??

what is an area of contention? i dont see what youre referring to. anytime the conclusion doesnt follow from the premises in an argument, its a fallacy.

Ryu-bom

11-07-2011, 03:18 PM

Sorry don't buy it. It could have come out when he first started to run and had only 6% on the polls.

Really?

Nobody would give a squat about you if you didn't have a chance to possibly win the highest office in this country with the ability to affect laws/public policy as well

We don't investigate losers only winners...:nod:
Either Cain comes clean or he will be smear

larrymoencurly

11-07-2011, 03:57 PM

Herman Cain was sexually harassing a WHITE woman?

That isn't gonna go over well with the base....:lol:
Race doesn't matter here. What does matter is that Cain's newest accuser, Sharon Bialek, is not ugly, thus giving her much more credibility and eliminating the "why would anybody want to do that to her?" and "who's the real victim?" factors. And I am saying that she looks good enough to compensate for Gloria Allred's involvement.

http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/1107-cain-accuser/10947240-1-eng-US/1107-CAIN-ACCUSER_full_600.jpg

Terrell

11-07-2011, 04:10 PM

If I were on a jury on a sexual harrasment civil trial, and there was proof that what she said was true, I'd have to vote to hold him liable as to this specific accuser.

As of right now, more evidence is needed to verify the truthfulness of her statement, in my opinion.

124nic8

11-07-2011, 04:11 PM

Networks Hit Cain Story 50 Times in Less Than Four Days; Ignored Clinton Scandals

Maybe partly due to Cain being an ahole to reporters; like telling his manager to send a journalist ethics manual.....

IOW, he's asking for it.

Dr. J

11-07-2011, 04:17 PM

Getting kind of fishy that women seem to be coming out of the woodwork so LONG after this stuff supposedly happened.

Demosthenes9

11-07-2011, 04:33 PM

Maybe partly due to Cain being an ahole to reporters; like telling his manager to send a journalist ethics manual.....

IOW, he's asking for it.

Or, networks jump at any kind of scandal when it involves Republicans, but when it's a Democrat ? Oh no, they suddenly show an uncommon level of restraint.

Does the John Edwards escapade ring a bell ?

124nic8

11-07-2011, 04:35 PM

Getting kind of fishy that women seem to be coming out of the woodwork so LONG after this stuff supposedly happened.

They're probably motivated to action by anger over his his outright denial.

new33

11-07-2011, 04:37 PM

Or, networks jump at any kind of scandal when it involves Republicans, but when it's a Democrat ? Oh no, they suddenly show an uncommon level of restraint.

Does the John Edwards escapade ring a bell ?
NO BECAUSE HE DIDN'T SEXUALLY HARASS THAT women but you would equate Sexual harassment with having an afair wouldn't u ?

124nic8

11-07-2011, 04:37 PM

Or, networks jump at any kind of scandal when it involves Republicans, but when it's a Democrat ? Oh no, they suddenly show an uncommon level of restraint.

Does the John Edwards escapade ring a bell ?

Yeah it rings lots of bells.... but that doesn't support your case now, does it?

As mentioned previously, unwanted harrassment is somewhat different than a consensual affair.

Demosthenes9

11-07-2011, 04:39 PM

NO BECAUSE HE DIDN'T SEXUALLY HARASS THAT women but you would equate Sexual harassment with having and fair wouldn't u ?

No, I wouldn't equate sexual harrasment with having an affair because they aren't the same thing.

Demosthenes9

11-07-2011, 04:42 PM

Yeah it rings lots of bells.... but that doesn't support your case now, does it?

As mentioned previously, unwanted harrassment is somewhat different than a consensual affair.

The networks didn't refuse to cover it because they see an affair as not being newsworthy but harassment is.

They didn't cover John Edwards when bits started coming out because he was a freaking Democrat, just as they did with Bill Clinton.

124nic8

11-07-2011, 04:46 PM

The networks didn't refuse to cover it because they see an affair as not being newsworthy but harassment is.

They didn't cover John Edwards when bits started coming out because he was a freaking Democrat, just as they did with Bill Clinton.

Seems that's just your unsubstantiated opinion; cause there are a host of other differences; most notably the difference between an affair and harrassment.

And BTW, you've yet to demonstrate a difference in the coverage.

Demosthenes9

11-07-2011, 04:58 PM

http://i.minus.com/ibr9zk7BwAQsZo.gif

That the two are NOT EQUAL, doesn't mean that they both aren't scandals or newsworthy.

I wouldn't equate sexual harassment with smoking some dope either, but I would expect news organizations to cover allegations of a candidate for POTUS getting high as well.

Demosthenes9

11-07-2011, 05:15 PM

Seems that's just your unsubstantiated opinion; cause there are a host of other differences; most notably the difference between an affair and harrassment.

And BTW, you've yet to demonstrate a difference in the coverage.

Both are newsworthy. Even you saw that when the MSM finally did get around to covering it.

As for not demonstrating the difference in coverage, we've seen the coverage on Cain, and here's some info from Wiki concerning Edwards.

On October 10, 2007, The National Enquirer, an American supermarket tabloid newspaper, published an article claiming that Edwards had engaged in an extramarital affair with an unnamed female campaign worker. On the same day, Sam Stein published another article at The Huffington Post which contained additional details about Hunter and the Web videos she had produced.[24] The following day, October 11, New York published a piece which linked Hunter to the Enquirer allegations.[19]

Both Edwards and Hunter denied the relationship claims. Edwards said the Enquirer story was "made up," and was quoted as saying "I've been in love with the same woman for 30-plus years," referring to his wife, Elizabeth Edwards, "and as anybody who's been around us knows, she's an extraordinary human being, warm, loving, beautiful, sexy and as good a person as I have ever known. So the story's just false."[25][26][27] Hunter's attorney issued a denial via Jerome Armstrong, a political blogger and founder of MyDD, stating "The innuendos and lies that have appeared on the (I)nternet and in the National Enquirer concerning John Edwards are not true, completely unfounded and ridiculous."[28][29] David Perel, the Enquirer Editor-in-Chief, stood by the paper's allegations, stating, "The original story was 100% accurate."[30]

The Enquirer published a follow-up story on December 19, 2007, that included a photograph of a visibly pregnant Hunter. The Enquirer alleged that, according to their anonymous source, Hunter was claiming that Edwards was the father of her child. The article also claimed that Hunter had relocated to a gated community in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, near Andrew Young, a former official with the Edwards campaign who had claimed paternity of Hunter's child. As with Hunter's initial denial of the affair, Young's paternity claim had been issued to Jerome Armstrong and published at MyDD.[31][32]

The claims received little attention in the mainstream press. CBS News journalist Bob Schieffer, asked about the allegations on Imus in the Morning, stated "I believe that's a story that we will be avoiding, because it appears to me that there's absolutely nothing to it...This seems to be just sort of a staple of modern campaigns, that you got through at least one love child which turns out not to be a love child. And I think we can all do better than this one."[33] Mickey Kaus, a journalist at Slate, speculated that the lack of mainstream coverage was motivated by a desire not to harm Elizabeth Edwards (who was fighting cancer at the time), or that the news organizations were taking a "wait-and-see" attitude pending the results of the Iowa caucuses.[34]

As of August 6, cable television news network CNN had not mentioned the story, and MSNBC had mentioned it once — on July 31, a late night talk program played part of a David Letterman "Top 10" list which alluded to the charges.

Hawk2007

11-07-2011, 05:47 PM

Race doesn't matter here. What does matter is that Cain's newest accuser, Sharon Bialek, is not ugly, thus giving her much more credibility and eliminating the "why would anybody want to do that to her?" and "who's the real victim?" factors. And I am saying that she looks good enough to compensate for Gloria Allred's involvement.

I'm surprised to find liberals such as yourself commenting on a woman's looks. The reason I say this is because liberal women in politics in general, are fugly. Yes, there are a few hotties, but by in large, they got beat with the ugly stick as a kid.

So, when liberal women see someone hot like Sarah Palin in politics AND the fact that they don't agree with her, you get the anti-SP frenzy. Of course, you invariably get the cute little remarks about her intelligence, this, that and the other. I'd take someone like Sarah Palin who has had real world experience with life than some dolt like Michelle Obama any day of the week.

OhNoItsDEVO

11-07-2011, 06:47 PM

edit....

OhNoItsDEVO

11-07-2011, 06:52 PM

It unbelievable that some are so blind to obvious bias in the media.

DJPlayer

11-07-2011, 07:40 PM

I'm surprised to find liberals such as yourself commenting on a woman's looks. The reason I say this is because liberal women in politics in general, are fugly. Yes, there are a few hotties, but by in large, they got beat with the ugly stick as a kid.

So, when liberal women see someone hot like Sarah Palin in politics AND the fact that they don't agree with her, you get the anti-SP frenzy. Of course, you invariably get the cute little remarks about her intelligence, this, that and the other. I'd take someone like Sarah Palin who has had real world experience with life than some dolt like Michelle Obama any day of the week.

been posted before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQLXWI229jQ

new33

11-07-2011, 07:49 PM

I'm surprised to find liberals such as yourself commenting on a woman's looks. The reason I say this is because liberal women in politics in general, are fugly. Yes, there are a few hotties, but by in large, they got beat with the ugly stick as a kid.

So, when liberal women see someone hot like Sarah Palin in politics AND the fact that they don't agree with her, you get the anti-SP frenzy. Of course, you invariably get the cute little remarks about her intelligence, this, that and the other. I'd take someone like Sarah Palin who has had real world experience with life than some dolt like Michelle Obama any day of the week.
rofl what real world experience ? reality tv whore ?

Rebound

11-07-2011, 09:18 PM

Getting kind of fishy that women seem to be coming out of the woodwork so LONG after this stuff supposedly happened.Really? Didn't two of him get legal settlements with him? It's not like he was running for President before. Women get sexually harassed all the time, but they don't get their names on the front of the New York Times unless the guy is the President of France or a Presidential candidate.

As for Herman Cain, it's too bad. I'd like to see him beaten on the basis of his dumb ideas, not on the basis of his being a sexual predator. Telling a woman to give him sex in exchange for a job is pretty disgusting.

Dr.Murdoc

11-07-2011, 09:19 PM

They're probably motivated to action by anger over his his outright denial.

They are only Angry since he is a republican.

http://cheezburger.com/View/2249729280

joer316

11-08-2011, 04:30 AM

From Yahoo forums, too funny:

Cain's new bumper sticker....

"CAIN 2012 ...where da white women at..??.."

:lol:

DBC

11-08-2011, 05:53 AM

Wouldn't it be considered attempted rape if he tried to finger bang the white broad with huge bangs?

Terrell

11-08-2011, 09:28 AM

Not sure, I think it would be a waste of a criminal case to prosecute him when she says that he stopped physical contact when she told him to stop.

TRNT

11-08-2011, 09:55 AM

Not sure, I think it would be a waste of a criminal case to prosecute him when she says that he stopped physical contact when she told him to stop.So men can go on, say, subways and put their hand under the skirt of women and as long as they stop when they are told to stop, they should not be prosecuted? Would you accept that wrt to your loved ones?

124nic8

11-08-2011, 10:17 AM

They are only Angry since he is a republican.

Since Bialik is a Republican, that doesn't make sense.

But I've a theory that white women are more sensitive to harrassment from black and ugly men.

Count_Chocula

11-08-2011, 10:23 AM

Witness: Sharon Bialek hugged Herman Cain during Tea Party meeting a month ago (http://www.suntimes.com/8592168-417/sneed-witness-says-cain-accuser-hugged-him-during-tea-party-meeting-a-month-ago.html)

The Cain Encounter ...

They hugged each other backstage in a full embrace like old friends.

She grabbed his arm and whispered in his left ear.

She kept talking as he bent to listen, and he kept saying “Uh, huh. Uh, huh.”

Huh?

“I don’t know if what she was giving him was a sucker punch, but he didn’t put his arm down while she was talking to him,” said the Sneed source.

Keepin the black man down...Clarence Thomas deja vu all over again.

http://www.suntimes.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls?STREAMOID=oF_hpwo_GrdwZZ$NCcbn0s$daE2N3K4ZzOUsqbU5sYuZ_jU7giMLfg3_qgLozUaMWCsjLu883Ygn4B49Lvm9bPe2QeMKQdVeZmXF$9l$4uCZ8QDXhaHEp3rvzXRJFdy0KqPHLoMevcTLo3h8xh70Y6N_U_CryOsw6FTOdKL_jpQ-&CONTENTTYPE=image/jpeg

andyfico

11-08-2011, 10:34 AM

So this woman delivers a statement at a press conference that doesn't really sound believable. She reportedly lives or lived in the same building as David Axelrod. She is seen backstage at an event hugging her alleged harasser. Hmmmm.....something seems kinda fishy. Now there is talk that one of the unnamed accusers works in the Obama administration. I wonder....

808Lurker

11-08-2011, 10:47 AM

How often do you hug & chat with people that sexually harrass you?

Twice a week, 3 if she comes over for dinner on saturday.

124nic8

11-08-2011, 10:50 AM

808Lurker

11-08-2011, 10:50 AM

Not sure, I think it would be a waste of a criminal case to prosecute him when she says that he stopped physical contact when she told him to stop.

That's why you gag them first /rimshot

Count_Chocula

11-08-2011, 10:52 AM

Twice a week, 3 if she comes over for dinner on saturday.
how soon can you start!

124nic8

11-08-2011, 10:55 AM

Doesn't the statement, "you know I have a boyfriend" kinda imply that she likes him and she'd be open to sex with him if she didn't?

Forgiving him does not show what you seem to think.

808Lurker

11-08-2011, 10:56 AM

how soon can you start!

Hey I am a dude!

joer316

11-08-2011, 10:58 AM

:teehee:

808Lurker

11-08-2011, 10:58 AM

Doesn't the statement, "you know I have a boyfriend" kinda imply that she likes him and she'd be open to sex with him if she didn't?

Forgiving him does not show what you seem to think.

Based on many high school rejections, IMHO it's more of a "i like/tolerate/still need you for X, but I am not into you that way, so take the hint buddy"....

WindySummer

11-08-2011, 10:58 AM

Since Bialik is a Republican, that doesn't make sense.and possibly a tea partier... Ms. Bialek said she most recently encountered Mr. Cain at a tea-party conference in Chicago in September. Steve Cochran, who described himself as a friend of Ms. Bialek and former co-worker at WGN radio in Chicago, said he also attended the event and that while he didn't see Ms. Bialek, he received a text from her saying she was there.

Ms. Bialek said she approached Mr. Cain and asked if he remembered her. "I guess I wanted to see if he was going to be man enough to own up to what he had done some 14 years ago,'' she said. "He acknowledged that he remembered me from the foundation, but he kind of looked uncomfortable and he said nothing, and he was whisked away for his speech by his handlers."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204190704577024231029936176.html

andyfico

11-08-2011, 11:02 AM

I (don't) wonder.....
That's your problem.

Elmer

11-08-2011, 11:58 AM

Witness: Sharon Bialek hugged Herman Cain during Tea Party meeting a month ago (http://www.suntimes.com/8592168-417/sneed-witness-says-cain-accuser-hugged-him-during-tea-party-meeting-a-month-ago.html)

Keepin the black man down...Clarence Thomas deja vu all over again.

http://www.suntimes.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls?STREAMOID=oF_hpwo_GrdwZZ$NCcbn0s$daE2N3K4ZzOUsqbU5sYuZ_jU7giMLfg3_qgLozUaMWCsjLu883Ygn4B49Lvm9bPe2QeMKQdVeZmXF$9l$4uCZ8QDXhaHEp3rvzXRJFdy0KqPHLoMevcTLo3h8xh70Y6N_U_CryOsw6FTOdKL_jpQ-&CONTENTTYPE=image/jpeg

Priceless.....

Another liar the left embraces as if they were Gandhi......

Elmer

11-08-2011, 12:03 PM

and possibly a tea partier...

Ms. Bialek said she most recently encountered Mr. Cain at a tea-party conference in Chicago in September. Steve Cochran, who described himself as a friend of Ms. Bialek and former co-worker at WGN radio in Chicago, said he also attended the event and that while he didn't see Ms. Bialek, he received a text from her saying she was there.

Ms. Bialek said she approached Mr. Cain and asked if he remembered her. "I guess I wanted to see if he was going to be man enough to own up to what he had done some 14 years ago,'' she said. "He acknowledged that he remembered me from the foundation, but he kind of looked uncomfortable and he said nothing, and he was whisked away for his speech by his handlers."

It's amazing what implausible stories some will believe, (or pretend to believe), simply because it fits their agenda.....

Deusxmachina

11-08-2011, 12:05 PM

Priceless.....

Another liar the left embraces as if they were Gandhi......
Look at that pic... is that Herman's arm around her waist? He's harassing her again!

Foreveryours

11-08-2011, 12:09 PM

Look at that pic... is that Herman's arm around her waist? He's harassing her again!
Actually his hand is pretty damn close to her breast.

124nic8

11-08-2011, 12:22 PM

That's your problem.

No problem. I've read enough of your posts that I don't have to "wonder."

andyfico

11-08-2011, 12:26 PM

I don't have to "wonder."
Again, that is your problem. You think you know and it explains a lot about you and your debate/discussion capabilities.

WindySummer

11-08-2011, 12:48 PM

Clarence Thomas deja vu all over again.

Priceless.....

Another liar the left embraces as if they were Gandhi......Why are you calling her a liar?

It's amazing what implausible stories some will believe, (or pretend to believe), simply because it fits their agenda.....What'd be even more amazing is if Sharon Bialek voluntarily takes and passes a polygraph test like Anita Hill did.

124nic8

11-08-2011, 12:56 PM

Again, that is your problem. You think you know and it explains a lot about you and your debate/discussion capabilities.

I would welcome your proving me wrong, but so far you've been remarkably consistent in posting partisan hackery.

Deusxmachina

11-08-2011, 01:01 PM

Actually his hand is pretty damn close to her breast.
If his hand was lower, someone would probably say it's pretty damn close to her hip or butt. :D

124nic8

11-08-2011, 01:16 PM

Priceless.....

Another liar the left embraces as if they were Gandhi......

Priceless....

Another Republican whom the right dismisses as soon as they go off the plantation....

BTW, I've not seen "the left embrace [Bialek] as if she were Gandhi."

But we see here the right calling her a liar w/o any evidence that she lied about being groped.

andyfico

11-08-2011, 01:17 PM

I would welcome your proving me wrong, but so far you've been remarkably consistent in posting partisan hackery.
Perhaps you are thinking about yourself? All I did was put forth some information about these women which could raise some doubts. I did not give my opinion one way or another. Perhaps because I did not post something that praised Obama is the reason you are all butt hurt? You accusing someone else of consistent partisan hackery is quite amusing though. Thanks for the laughs!

Grinner

11-08-2011, 01:20 PM

She's asking for it in that dress.

WindySummer

11-08-2011, 01:25 PM

The woman in the picture is Amy Jacobson.

andyfico

11-08-2011, 01:33 PM

I would welcome your proving me wrong, but so far you've been remarkably consistent in posting partisan hackery.
Prove what? That I don't believe every positive thing about Cain? I don't. I like Cain from a personal perspective but I don't think he would be the right choice for our country. I may lean towards the conservative side, but I assign blame wherever I think it lies. I've bashed Cain before but from what I've seen and heard so far, something sounds fishy with these accusations. I've now proven you wrong. Happy? :D

124nic8

11-08-2011, 01:34 PM

Perhaps you are thinking about yourself? All I did was put forth some information about these women which could raise some doubts. I did not give my opinion one way or another. Perhaps because I did not post something that praised Obama is the reason you are all butt hurt? You accusing someone else of consistent partisan hackery is quite amusing though. Thanks for the laughs!

Sorry, from your post it sounded very much like you were endorsing those half-truths and rumors. And you did, at least enough to make you "wonder."

But I apologize. You've improved. Previously you would have convicted Obama and now you're just "wondering."

andyfico

11-08-2011, 01:38 PM

Sorry, from your post it sounded very much like you were endorsing those half-truths and rumors. And you did, at least enough to make you "wonder."

But I apologize. You've improved. Previously you would have convicted Obama and now you're just "wondering."
It sounds fishy to me. She apparently lived in the same building as Axelrod and this other woman reportedly works in the Obama administration and Cain right now is the front runner and could end up facing Obama. It's just weird and given the "facts" presented thus far it isn't out of the realm of impossibility that she could have been recruited by the Obama camp to damage Cain (stranger things have happened in the world of politics). Do I believe it? Not right now. But are these strange coincidences? Yes. It could also be that one of his opponents recruited her. She has had financial problems as well as legal problems. Now she shows up with a high priced celebrity lawyer? How is she paying for this?? Is someone paying for Allred and possibly paying her? I'll say it again; it's weird.

Lilian

11-08-2011, 01:45 PM

It sounds fishy to me. She has had financial problems as well as legal problems. Now she shows up with a high priced celebrity lawyer? How is she paying for this?? Is someone paying for Allred and possibly paying her? I'll say it again; it's weird.

I can answer this part. Allred does this kind of stuff for free. Free publicity that is.

Terrell

11-08-2011, 01:49 PM

So men can go on, say, subways and put their hand under the skirt of women and as long as they stop when they are told to stop, they should not be prosecuted? Would you accept that wrt to your loved ones?

Considering that that circumstance is a bit different than this particular one, I would look at such cases differently. Not all cases of unwanted touching are the same.

Also I would look at loved ones differently from strangers, so not only is that an emotional argument, it's a bad one.

WindySummer

11-08-2011, 02:12 PM

The Cain Encounter ...

They hugged each other backstage in a full embrace like old friends.

She grabbed his arm and whispered in his left ear.

She kept talking as he bent to listen, and he kept saying “Uh, huh. Uh, huh.”

http://www.suntimes.com/8592168-417/sneed-witness-says-cain-accuser-hugged-him-during-tea-party-meeting-a-month-ago.htmlAnybody know what actually was said?
Ms. Bialek said she approached Mr. Cain and asked if he remembered her. "I guess I wanted to see if he was going to be man enough to own up to what he had done some 14 years ago,'' she said. "He acknowledged that he remembered me from the foundation, but he kind of looked uncomfortable and he said nothing, and he was whisked away for his speech by his handlers."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204190704577024231029936176.htmlMaybe Herman will address this at his press conference.

Demosthenes9

11-08-2011, 02:12 PM

Considering that that circumstance is a bit different than this particular one, I would look at such cases differently. Not all cases of unwanted touching are the same.

Also I would look at loved ones differently from strangers, so not only is that an emotional argument, it's a bad one.

I'd have to say that IF what is alleged actually did occur, then it would sexual assault. You don't just lean in and try to kiss a woman for the first time AND feel her up at the same time.

Elmer

11-08-2011, 02:16 PM

Look at that pic... is that Herman's arm around her waist? He's harassing her again!

That's not Bialek. Bialek apparently gave him a full on frontal body hug.

Terrell

11-08-2011, 02:19 PM

I'd have to say that IF what is alleged actually did occur, then it would sexual assault. You don't just lean in and try to kiss a woman for the first time AND feel her up at the same time.

I'd agree that it's a really bad idea to do that, I'm saying that I think that it would be a waste of time to prosecute in those circumstances, if he backed off when she said stop. If he persisted after she said stop, then I'd agree that prosecution is worthwhile.

I do think that is a bit different than the guy in the subway who grabs women who are strangers under their clothing. The latter IMO, is worse than the former.

I also think that we'll never know one way or the other who is really telling the truth.

Elmer

11-08-2011, 02:20 PM

What'd be even more amazing is if Sharon Bialek voluntarily takes and passes a polygraph test like Anita Hill did.

There's a reason that polygraph's aren't generally introduced or allowed as evidence in court. They're inaccurate, and pathological liars and the mentally ill often can easily pass them, despite their dishonesty.

Ryu-bom

11-08-2011, 02:24 PM

There's a reason that polygraph's aren't generally introduced or allowed as evidence in court. They're inaccurate, and pathological liars and the mentally ill often can easily pass them, despite their dishonesty.

So that could work both ways...

So is Cain a pathological liar and mentally unstable too... Oh wait I think the 1st is probably true since he is a POLITICIAN after all

Terrell

11-08-2011, 02:26 PM

There's a reason that polygraph's aren't generally introduced or allowed as evidence in court. They're inaccurate, and pathological liars and the mentally ill often can easily pass them, despite their dishonesty.

Good point, It's probably also possible that a person who is telling the truth could fail it.

Lilian

11-08-2011, 02:29 PM

Despite the bashing on Cain, "I don't remember" is the politically correct answer during a situation like this.

vaultaddict

11-08-2011, 02:51 PM

Heard the news conf. on radio. Not particularly convincing. Doubt it will change any opinions. I don't care if he did it. Then again, I'm not a social conservative that concerns themselves with these matters.

DBC

11-08-2011, 03:07 PM

That's not Bialek. Bialek apparently gave him a full on frontal body hug.
Yes, but the question still remains: Did he force her to give him a full on oral hug?

WindySummer

11-08-2011, 04:21 PM

There's a reason that polygraph's aren't generally introduced or allowed as evidence in court. They're inaccurate, and pathological liars and the mentally ill often can easily pass them, despite their dishonesty.Overstood.

As you know, the polygraph is a valuable tool that has been used by law enforcement agencies for decades.

Deusxmachina

11-08-2011, 04:29 PM

TRNT

11-08-2011, 04:52 PM

Considering that that circumstance is a bit different than this particular one, I would look at such cases differently. Not all cases of unwanted touching are the same.

Also I would look at loved ones differently from strangers, so not only is that an emotional argument, it's a bad one.Please explain this "difference" that you speak of.

SigX

11-08-2011, 04:57 PM

so this guy is slick willy 2.0. whats the problem libs?

DBC

11-08-2011, 04:58 PM

Remember when black men who were accused of raping white women were automatically guilty? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

I'm glad that we live in a post-racial America and my white brothers and sisters blindly defend a black man who has been accused of attempted rape and sexual harassment by multiple women. I just hope that they do the same when a Mexican, Muslim or any other minority is accused of victimizing a white person or people.

Terrell

11-08-2011, 05:27 PM

Please explain this "difference" that you speak of.

You compared a subway groper acting in a public place, to two people who supposedly already talked to one another where one makes an unwanted sexual advance in a semi-private case. (a terribly done sexual advance I might add, but not IMO an attempted rape)

If what the person alleges is true, I don't support Mr. Cain's actions but I don't think he should be prosecuted, when the accuser clearly says that he stopped when told to as a matter of discretion. I highly doubt that we will ever know for sure who is telling the truth here.

TRNT

11-08-2011, 05:32 PM

You compared a subway groper acting in a public place, to two people who supposedly already talked to one another where one makes an unwanted sexual advance in a semi-private case. (a terribly done sexual advance I might add, but not IMO an attempted rape)

If what the person alleges is true, I don't support Mr. Cain's actions but I don't think he should be prosecuted, when the accuser clearly says that he stopped when told to as a matter of discretion. I highly doubt that we will ever know for sure who is telling the truth here.Fair enough.

Let me make sure I understand you. Person A has talked to person B. They are in a semi-private place. A inserts his hand under the skirt of B and tries to gran her genitals. B asks A to stop. A stops. No crime has been committed?

Terrell

11-08-2011, 05:37 PM

Fair enough.

Let me make sure I understand you. Person A has talked to person B. They are in a semi-private place. A inserts his hand under the skirt of B and tries to gran her genitals. B asks A to stop. A stops. No crime has been committed?

What I'm saying is that prosecutors should use discretion and choose not to prosecute (criminally) in that circumstance. Especially when B has already stated publicly that A stopped when asked. I do not approve of A's actions.

TRNT

11-08-2011, 05:59 PM

What I'm saying is that prosecutors should use discretion and choose not to prosecute (criminally) in that circumstance. Especially when B has already stated publicly that A stopped when asked. I do not approve of A's actions.Ok, I get your point about prosecutor's discretion. What I would like to ask you is whether or not you think such action SHOULD BE illegal.

WindySummer

11-08-2011, 06:00 PM

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said Tuesday that he would be willing to take a lie detector test to rebut multiple claims that he engaged in sexual harassment in the 1990s, though he seemed to stop short of promising to do so.

"Yes. I absolutely would," Cain said when asked about taking a test. "But I'm not going to do that unless I have a good reason to do that. Of course I would be willing to do a lie detector test."

During a press conference in Scottsdale to address the scandal threatening to engulf his campaign, Cain repeated his claim that he did not recognize Bialek when he saw her at her press conference Monday and said he did not remember her name.

The identity of another of Cain's accusers, 55-year-old federal employee and registered Republican Karen Kraushaar, was revealed. Kraushaar told CBS News that she is interested in holding a press conference with all of women who claim Cain sexually harassed them.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57320946-503544/herman-cain-id-take-lie-detector-test-to-rebut-sharon-bialek-claims/Cain is done.

Elmer

11-08-2011, 06:02 PM

Overstood.

As you know, the polygraph is a valuable tool that has been used by law enforcement agencies for decades.

And yet it's still largely inadmissible.

I'm pretty familiar with it's use.

It's chief benefit, has been to cajole those who are lying, into telling the truth, when the polygrapher asks the same question, multiple times, couched differently, and the subject is sure they're being found out. Those who feel no remorse, or believe their cause to lie is righteous, often exhibit no measurable reactions.

TRNT

11-08-2011, 06:03 PM

Yep, it's unfortunate to have to pick one or the other, especially in this age of multitasking.Such brilliant entertainment and free too. Thanks.

WindySummer

11-08-2011, 06:04 PM

And yet it's still largely inadmissible.

I'm pretty familiar with it's use.

It's chief benefit, has been to cajole those who are lying, into telling the truth, when the polygrapher asks the same question, multiple times, couched differently, and the subject is sure they're being found out. Those who feel no remorse, or believe their cause to lie is righteous, often exhibit no measurable reactions.Agreed.

Terrell

11-08-2011, 06:12 PM

Ok, I get your point about prosecutor's discretion. What I would like to ask you is whether or not you think such action SHOULD BE illegal.

I think it would be questionable as to whether that specific circumstance should be illegal. Such a law could easily, in situations other than Cain's, put people in jail that moved too far too fast, but quickly stopped when the female set him straight. I think that would be, at least some of the time, unjust.

SigX

11-08-2011, 06:19 PM

Ok, I get your point about prosecutor's discretion. What I would like to ask you is whether or not you think such action SHOULD BE illegal.
Fair enough.

Let me make sure I understand you. Person A has talked to person B. They are in a semi-private place. A inserts his hand under the skirt of B and tries to gran her genitals. B asks A to stop. A stops. No crime has been committed?
did she report this to the police? I was under the impression that she did nto report this and thus it was really not a big deal.

808Lurker

11-08-2011, 06:23 PM

Priceless.....

Another liar the left embraces as if they were Gandhi......

It's always gotta be the left, eh? I long for the time when communists were the boogeyman de jour of the right...

I hear the left was responsible for the tsunami that wiped out Japan's nuclear reactors as a way to stop nuclear plants and to promote solar.

Let me guess, Obama is so afraid of Cain, that he is trying to influence the republican primary. It has to be the left and not the other republican president candidates, they would never stoop so low to try to take out a front runner to get themselves ahead. You guys better be scared, Obama has insiders in the TEA PARTY now!

124nic8

11-08-2011, 06:30 PM

Cain is done.

Cain seems confused about the definition of "willing."

He's willing, but he won't??????

Does that mean he could be convinced? "Willing" under undefined circumstances?

Elmer

11-08-2011, 06:33 PM

hey anyone notice how the same people who bash Clinton for his sexual misconduct, are now defending Cain sexual misconduct...
And instead of blaming Cain for bad judgement they blame the alcohol made him do it...:lol:

LOL... at partisan hacks

LOL at partisan hacks that can't distinguish between defending accusations, and defending actual behavior and lying about it.......

TRNT

11-08-2011, 06:35 PM

I think it would be questionable as to whether that specific circumstance should be illegal. Such a law could easily, in situations other than Cain's, put people in jail that moved too far too fast, but quickly stopped when the female set him straight. I think that would be, at least some of the time, unjust.So your sister/daughter goes to a bank to apply for a loan. After a a few minutes the loan officer puts his hand under your sister/daughter/sister and tried to fondle her genitals. She asks him to stop and he stops. No crime???

Unbelievable!!!!

did she report this to the police? I was under the impression that she did nto report this and thus it was really not a big deal.Many even rape victims do not report the crime immediately, if ever. So they were not raped then?