Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Herman Cain Accused of Inappropriate Sexual Behavior: Two Women Receive Financial Settlements

page: 26
22
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 




When Cain clearly screws up and we can watch the video and make our own judgments about it, it's considered "hyping", but when the MSM (and Romney) purposely misquotes Obama and spins it to be an insult to all Americans, that is somehow comparable? I've said it a hundred times. but when you see one word quoted, you should ask questions: Obama says Americans are "lazy". Yes, he used the word lazy. But the similarity stops there. That's why that's the only word they could legally quote. Because it's TOTALLY out of context. One word quoted is a warning sign. Look for the truth.

It's typical language from a narcissist. Obama only disgraces himself when he apologizes for America or talks down about the American people.


I have no problem with a general interruputation (why is that word impossible for me to spell?)
What is disgusting is the every five minute re-runs.
edit on 16-11-2011 by sweetliberty because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by sweetliberty
 


“We’ve been a little bit lazy over the last couple of decades. We’ve kind of taken for granted — ‘Well, people would want to come here’ — and we aren’t out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new businesses into America,” he told the CEOs who are gathered on the sidelines of the annual Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meetings, which the United States is hosting this year in Hawaii.

Can you point out the typical narcissistic language? Keep in mind he is talking to CEOs and including HIMSELF.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I edited the last post while you were posting to it, sorry BH.



Can you point out the typical narcissistic language? Keep in mind he is talking to CEOs and including HIMSELF.


Obama restricts small business with heavy regulations and recently he lifted a few of them because he knows the regulations are killing the small business. I added that to show he is fully aware of his own ideology crushing the job creators, and in such a small period of time. His statements are a way to cover his own failings with the economy.
His "language" isn't based only on that statement, it's also based on the other statements since he took office.
For instance, his apology tour

and a couple of months ago he talked down about America, what about when he told the BCC, I think it was the BCC, to stop whining and for the blacks to take off their slippers and pull up their boot straps...
What I'm trying to explain is that he is the SNIPPING President of the Untied States, he stirs # up, smiles and leaves. Then he runs somewhere else to stirring #, drops it and plays a round of golf.
I put more hours in my work in a day than he does. Thats sad.
I apologize but I have to get off of here.
Tomorrow I'll find links for this post and for some of the other replies when I answer some of the other questions asked to me.
Thanks
edit on 16-11-2011 by sweetliberty because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweetliberty


Obama restricts small business with heavy regulations and recently he lifted a few of them because he knows the regulations are killing the small business. I added that to show he is fully aware of his own ideology crushing the job creators, and in such a small period of time.




During the first half of 2011, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that less than one-quarter of 1 percent (0.0023) of U.S. job layoffs were due to regulations, according to the businesses themselves.

About 30 percent of layoffs were in fact due to poor “business demand.”

This data is confirmed by every credible recent survey of owners of small businesses — lack of consumer demand and economic uncertainty are the most important reasons small businesses aren’t adding jobs.

It was found by surveys for the
Small Business Majority,
McClatchy News Service,
National Association for Business Economics,
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
and even the NFIB.


www.unconflictedsc.com...

0.0023 of 1% of Small Business owners cited regulations as a reason for layoffs.

30% of Small Business owners cited lack in consumer demand.

BTW - It doesn't take multiple surveys or a degree in economics to realize it is not "regulations" that are hurting small businesses...it is the massive recession we are crawling out of!...remember that thing on the news once or twice?

The rhetoric about "regulations" being the cause of our ills is simply a ruse put forward by establishment republicans to offer goodies to big corporations and has been disproven by every survey conducted, not to mention rational minds...we did have a near economic collapse...but it is over-regulation that is holding businesses back? Not consumer demand? People would just rush to buy everything if those companies could just pollute a little more? Failed logic...as well as failed factual argument.
edit on 16-11-2011 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-11-2011 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-11-2011 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-11-2011 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by sweetliberty
 


BTW - Star for that. Awesome that you called him up. Did they ceased using LVA due to "budget" reasons according to him? They said that they didn't finish the testing?

I get the sense that it is used as a psuedo intimidation tool during interrogation? Rather than a genuine Lie Detecttor? LVA might tell him where to dig a little, but he wasn't leaning on it as a truth machine per se?



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 




People want to get information from an unbiased source...Cain's website isn't exactly an unbiased source when analyzing his own plan.

I agree. I also think it's best to go to the original source first. Once you've read it, you can better understand which sources to trust. Which sources go in depth and argue it with facts and maybe even charts, maps, graphs...
There could be some things left out of the "unbiased" source that, when in an debate or discussion with someone, you unknowingly show a weakness, allowing the other person to get the upper hand on the conversation.




At the very least....wage earners get slapped with an 18% tax...if companies pass their 9% tax onto the consumer...it is closer to 27%. But the rich get their capital gains at 0%...that is ridiculous. It also punishes people who have to spend the majority of their income...which is most of middle and lower class. If you have extra money that you invest or save...you get a tax break. His plan is directed towards the rich...and it sucks.


If true, when it's placed in action, sure, that would suck but it's not, lol. I could link some sources if you like but it sounds like you're already convinced.
I wouldn't try to push it on you or anyone else


Peace



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 10:50 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Politico



During Herman Cain’s tenure as the head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, at least two female employees complained to colleagues and senior association officials about inappropriate behavior by Cain, ultimately leaving their jobs at the trade group, multiple sources confirm to POLITICO.

Cain said he has “had thousands of people working for me” at different businesses over the years and could not comment “until I see some facts or some concrete evidence.” His campaign staff was given the name of one woman who complained last week, and it was repeated to Cain on Sunday. He responded, “I am not going to comment on that.”


Cain continues to avoid answering direct questions about the incidents. When asked point blank by a reporter, “Have you ever been accused, sir, in your life of harassment by a woman?” his reply:



He breathed audibly, glared at the reporter and stayed silent for several seconds. After the question was repeated three times, he responded by asking the reporter, “Have you ever been accused of sexual harassment?”


This could be a concern for someone who is trying to be the next president. I'm curious what his supporters here have to say about this...
edit on 10/31/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)




It's cheaper most of the time to settle with liars rather than fight the lies in court. It was an association that settled anyway not single individual Herman Cain himself who btw wanted to fight the lies.

Interesting note:

The two women who are known publicly now will not take any lie detector tests, why is that? The women who are not I am sure wont either.


Herman Cain is willing to take one.
edit on 17-11-2011 by LilDudeissocool because: I added content.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
It's cheaper most of the time to settle with liars rather than fight the lies in court. It was an association that settled anyway not single individual Herman Cain himself who btw wanted to fight the lies.

Interesting note:

The two women who are known publicly now will not take any lie detector tests, why is that? The women who are not I am sure wont either.


Herman Cain is willing to take one.


I think one of the biggest mistakes here is many seem to want to Monday morning quarterback Cain as to what he should have or have not done. Remember he is not a polished life time Politician with a team on standby for this type of situation. I do think that he was confused at first, then went on the defensive without knowing all the details, and this fits with his first reactions quite well.

It is also well within a companies' norm to handle HR issues without the CEO etc. not being directly involved in the process. Dismissals with negative actions happen all the time and Cain just happens to have been in charge of a company for a long time, so I'm sure he has had a good number of instances where people have left his companies pissed off.

If every pissed off person from his past decided to come out and speak ill of him the list would be long WITHOUT him ever really having any direct involvement in it other than being the CEO. The old "the buck stops here" is something he has had to live with.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by FallenWun
 


HermanCainAllegations


BREAKING: Anonymous Cain accuser comes forward: "I once witnessed Herman Cain squeezing the Charmin."




Given your inability to even recognize over 70% of my post and your failure to respond to what you did quote, I am going to go out on a limb and guess your mama said that to you A LOT.

How do you beat Obama?
With a Cain!




Waiting in line? If you get something coherent to say, I would love to read it. I have no clue what to do with this random thought generator created mess.

[***...Right on cue....***]
Here
edit on 17-11-2011 by sweetliberty because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


I wonder who said, ... the truth lies in the middle?
If that's true, then truth is simply perception, lol. With that in mind, I realize, as far as the Herman Cain issues go. I'm finding what Paul Harvey coined, ... the rest of the story.


You ever so graciously threw this information on here, knowing it might cause me to kick my dog or break a nail. Well, ... !


He vehemently supported TARP bailout...even wrote a letter pitching it.. www.frumforum.com...

So I asked my side-kick, DELL, to help me find the rest of the story, if one exists.
I found many articles but chose this one because the 1:28 video/audio, located in the link below is direct and to the point. Herman Cain is asked "Do you support TARP?"
www.therightscoop.com...
I have to admit, the more Herman Cain talks, the more he's having to clarify his statements. Who can keep up, there's stories on top of stories about this one particular subject, for instance.

May I assume, we might agree, Herman Cain is, at least, a sloppy communicator?

If I squint my eyes really hard, I might see that Herman Cain... might be a... uhm, ... more of a knee jerk type of answer-er.
If he's accustomed to answering colleagues, in the business world, with at-the-snap-of-the-finger speedy response, a hundred times a day, he might take heed to this reactionatory (sic, very sic) habit because its a non productive tail chaser




hat's not some "liberal" talking about Cain, that is Michelle Bachman!

Michelle Bachman runs off at the mouth too much. She's very bright and a real go-getter. What bothers me the most about her might seem petty but nevertheless, she attacked Herman Cain's 9-9-9 Plan using a Christianity belief as her tool of choice. If that's all she had to use in attacking his plan, then she simply had nothing to attack so she took the low road.

That's not a flip flop
Cain's position is one of personal responsibility when it comes to abortion, it's not the government's choice but the choice of the family, the couple, the person. Just because silly Perry has an opinion doesn't make Cain a flip flopper. As far as a Christianity pov, God isn't a control freak, He allows us to make and face our own decisions.
I certainly have some food for thought, thank you... and more sadistic articles to decipher.
Peace

Eta:


The current GOP establishment represents a mix of moneyed interests and the relatively recent movement of the evangelical right into the political arena.

I've noticed that too. Well said.



True conservatives care not about religion....government should not be speaking about religion or pandering to religion...it is an intrusion...it is "big government".

I wonder if what you meant when you said "True conservatives care not about religion...", is that true conservatives aren't "religious" but are "believers". Imo, Religion is more like a habitual routine.
Other than not understanding that quote, for some odd reason, we agree.



Doesn't mean candidates cannot be religious, just keep it the hell out of politics...small gov, not big.

Tell that to our Campaigner in Chief please. Ever since he took office, there has been division and a detest of Christians and Jews that I only read about before. The religion and government issue definitely should be untangled and addressed as the Founding Fathers meant it to be.

edit on 17-11-2011 by sweetliberty because: link
edit on 17-11-2011 by sweetliberty because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by sweetliberty
 


As far as Cain's Waffles/Flip-Flops...he probably is doing it no more so than the other GOP Nominees, but with less strategic grace and tact.

With the Republican base seemingly willing to change who they favor at a whim, every candidate is thinking "What the hell to I have to say to these people to get their love!" I have watched Romeny, Perry, Newt and Cain all pander to their base espousing positions that they have not held in the recent past and which I doubt they really hold now.

I guess what frustrates me is that I think the Conservative Base would tolerate some issue variance from thier own beliefs and trade that for an honest candidate...my god how we need one of those...GOP or Dem.

I think that is in a large part Ron Paul's appeal...he may be a little nutty...but he is going to tell you the truth about where he stands, love it or leave it. That has real appeal. If the GOP had someone more mainstream than Paul that spoke truth in the same way, 2012 would be over IMO.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
It's cheaper most of the time to settle with liars rather than fight the lies in court. It was an association that settled anyway not single individual Herman Cain himself who btw wanted to fight the lies.

Interesting note:

The two women who are known publicly now will not take any lie detector tests, why is that? The women who are not I am sure wont either.


Herman Cain is willing to take one.


I think one of the biggest mistakes here is many seem to want to Monday morning quarterback Cain as to what he should have or have not done. Remember he is not a polished life time Politician with a team on standby for this type of situation. I do think that he was confused at first, then went on the defensive without knowing all the details, and this fits with his first reactions quite well.

It is also well within a companies' norm to handle HR issues without the CEO etc. not being directly involved in the process. Dismissals with negative actions happen all the time and Cain just happens to have been in charge of a company for a long time, so I'm sure he has had a good number of instances where people have left his companies pissed off.

If every pissed off person from his past decided to come out and speak ill of him the list would be long WITHOUT him ever really having any direct involvement in it other than being the CEO. The old "the buck stops here" is something he has had to live with.


That's all true. The thing is this is in the total sum of the establishment both left and right not wanting to have a chance of a president taking office who will work hard to allow those with resources such as the Koch brothers to buyout all the most profitable and stable publicly traded companies. Cain or any of the other non Mitt the Flip candidates will allow for the near total deregulation of Wall Street, a deregulated business environment which will facilitate the most profitable companies to be taken out of the ownership pool of the millionaire crowd. They own many such described publicly traded companies through their stock portfolios. It's easy money making in making money with money, and a safe-haven for storing their wealth. If those safe havens are taken out of the pool of publicly traded companies by being bought up by the billionaire crowd, and turned into proprietorships as Koch Industries did with Georgia Pacific, the millionaire establishment will be left with only junk stocks and bonds to trade. These include many national media figures. They what their easy wealth creation and storage mechanisms protected. Obama and Mitt the Flip protect those safe-havens for the millionaires crowd the 99% of the top 1%.

The establishment of both the left and the right, the millionaire crowd, needs to go first. After the 99%ers of the whole and the 1% of the top 1%, the billionaire crowd are left both demographics can hash it out later.

Millionaires in the media need to be challenged first and for most. Grassroots on the left and on the right need to focus together on defeating the millionaire media crowd. The Bill O' Reilly-s the Chis Mathews etc. They are for Mitt the Flip and Obama. So both grassroots groups on both sides of the political system need to practice in the short term, "my enemy's enemy is my friend."

Cain needs to get real with the Koch brothers and team up with their counterparts on the grassroots left like Soros and his political allies such as Elisabeth Warren.

That needs to be the macro game plan for a united grassroots effort for real change. Once implemented anytime after the millionaire media crowd attacks will not be heard as their spun slanted words enabling the establishment would be ignored.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


PS
" I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half. " - Jay Gould

What do you think of that quote?

The media millionaire crowd is using that tact to high tech lynch folks in the media.

The Tea Party and Occupy need to join up together in an unholy alliance like West and East did during WW2.

Of course that makes the millionaire media crowd you know who in that analogy.

edit on 17-11-2011 by LilDudeissocool because: typo



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


PS
" I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half. " - Jay Gould

What do you think of that quote?

The media millionaire crowd is using that tact to high tech lynch folks in the media.

The Tea Party and Occupy need to join up together in an unholy alliance like West and East did during WW2.

Of course that makes the millionaire media crowd you know who in that analogy.

edit on 17-11-2011 by LilDudeissocool because: typo


The simple solution to the repeated complaints about the Media Tycoons ruling the world is simple...stop watching.

The right complains about MSNBC and the left complains about FOX...I watch neither, they are both slanted.

CNN isn't so biased, but they are definetly tabloid and sometimes when I flip channels and watch the CNN talking heads I just get the feeling that they are saying things, but often it doesn't look like the "lights are on" when you look at their eyes.

Once upon a time, for someone to become a news "talking head" they had to work their way up from the news room, doing research, writing stories etc. Now they just have to look pretty and read the tele-prompter.

I make due with NPR which to me seems the most objective, but I still need to watch for bias. At the end of the day if a story interests you and you want the truth, you are going to have to research it from all sides, because the "news" has decided it is "not their job" anymore....sad but true.

I guess what I am saying is that in order for the news media to be able to Propagandize...we the people need to play our part and buy what they say without questioning it. So it is more than just Media Barrons...it takes some willful ignorance on the listeners part as well. We LOVE to have that guy/gal on TV stroke our worldview, it just makes us feel sooo "Right".



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Lol give me a break.... He was a wet behind the ears first year senator.... His management skills were community organizer... He has been led by the hand from day one...


We both know you are purposely leaving a lot out and if you have to lie to make your point, we both also know what that says about the point you are trying to make. Better luck next time.




"There is a big difference between a wife who has struggled with and tolerated an unfaithful spouse and kept the issue within the marriage....and a wife having to smile for the cameras and lie to defend your husband cheating on you"

Took 30 seconds to find this... but this thread is not the only Cain thread....


Perhaps it was so easy to find because it does not at all resemble what I asked you to come up with?
There is another big TRY AGAIN for ya!


5 have come forward with sexual harassment/assault charged directly against Cain? didn't know... You like to use the word "hypocrite" a lot. How would I be one if I view a situation with Allred and her client as something other than a poor damsel in distress? What is hypocrital about that?


You do not get to make up new reasons for why I called you a hypocrite. You are telling people they are in no position to judge innocence or guilt and then going on to judge everyone else as guilty of something yourself. Do you need me to define the word for you?


My post wasn't directed towards you, you asked a question, and so I answered.


Your post was a DIRECT RESPONSE TO ME as well as addressed me directly. You might ought to leave this posting thing up to your older brother.


You missed my point completely.. Do you really think that Allred didn't go over every word making sure the RIGHT words were said no matter the truth? She is very good at what she does, and know exactly what her client should and should not say.


That was the point of completely changing what was claimed to have happened by anyone? That made no sense.





Allred's job is to destroy anyone she puts her eyes on to make money and fame. Cain just happens to be next in line....
edit on 15-11-2011 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)


I forgot. You know everything about everyone enough to judge them, including us who you can judge not in position to judge.



posted on Nov, 20 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by sweetliberty
 


I do not know how to respond to this special brand of mental patient ranting. Pictures of brownies?



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Here we go...13 year affair

www.huffingtonpost.com...



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Same story too - she went to Herman Cain seeking employment - guess she decided it was easier to give in to his sexual demands. Wonder what sort of job is worth a 13-year affair? This guy just oozes sleaze.



posted on Nov, 28 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Same story too - she went to Herman Cain seeking employment - guess she decided it was easier to give in to his sexual demands. Wonder what sort of job is worth a 13-year affair? This guy just oozes sleaze.


Women are not victims to men just because they need a job but end up sleeping with someone who employs.
If someone has an affair with a married man/woman, they are just as sleazy as the weak married puke, geez.

Both are cowards (if it was a sexual affair like she claims).
edit on 28-11-2011 by sweetliberty because: sp






top topics



 
22
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in

join