The Lynching of Herman Cain

Yeah...we know we can't trust those guys who Served with him............

You know what he's accused of, Soc. Sexual harassment. You may not know the details of the the accusations, but that's like hearing that someone is accused of three separate murders and then playing dumb because you don't know if they used a gun or a knife.

This should've been a potential issue brought up when his campaign managers vetted him; they should've had a response ready months ago. Failing that, they should've given some response when they were told the story was incoming. They were offered a chance to respond, and they chose to ignore it. A competent campaign wouldn't have made such a bone-headed flub, much less made several contradictory statements over the course of a few days.

When a news agency calls you to let you know they have a potentially damaging story on you, you issue a statement. He ignored it completely instead. After a few days it became clear the issue wasn't going away, and then he called them liars. Of course, he only did that by exposing a few lies of his own.

I'm saying he shouldn't have waited. That was stupid.

Now, I'm not saying this is any more fair than any other time the media gets their jaws on a sensationalistic, turgid scandal. I think there are a lot more good reasons to oppose Herman Cain than some scandal from 15 or so years ago. But, this is how politics work. Your past is put up to scrutiny. When that happens, you need to know how to field it, and he dropped the ball here.

He can call them liars...not so good. Deny unspecified charges...not so good.

Maybe it's because if Cain did that then he would not be telling the truth, especially since Cain himself basicially stated that the story was true...

Earlier in the day, Herman Cain explicitly denied knowledge of any settlement or financial payout related to allegations of sexual harassment, telling Fox News: "At the Restaurant Association – outside of the Restaurant Association, absolutely not. If the Restaurant Association did a settlement I wasn’t even aware of it and I hope it wasn’t for much because nothing happened. So if there was a settlement it was handled by some of the other officers who worked for me at the time.”

But just a few hours later, in an interview with the cable network's Greta Van Susteren, he recalled specific details about the allegations and one of the two settlements first reported by POLITICO.

"My general counsel said this started out where she and her lawyer were demanding a huge financial settlement…I don't remember a number," he said in a transcript portion published by Byron York.

"…But then he said because there was no basis for this, we ended up settling for what would have been a termination settlement." When van Susteren asked how much money was involved, Cain said: "Maybe three months' salary. I don't remember. It might have been two months. I do remember my general counsel saying we didn't pay all of the money they demanded.

He also recalled the second woman in the POLITICO story, saying twice he knew of no "formal" complaint she'd made, according to the transcript.

This is a bit of a change from the stark denials Cain's campaign issued yesterday of the story.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67279.html

Failing that, they should've given some response when they were told the story was incoming. They were offered a chance to respond, and they chose to ignore it.

Yeah, Cain had 10 days notice of this story....

Cain’s response to the Politico story uncovering the allegations is turning into a textbook example of what not to do. Politico gave his campaign 10 days to formulate a reaction — an astonishing amount of time in the modern, tweet-first check-later world.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/cains-campaign-made-a-bad-situation-worse/2011/03/04/gIQAGmEXZM_blog.html

Actually, Politico gathered the evidence based on settlements from the National Restaurant Association. They still haven't said anything publicly, nor have their identities been revealed. And an NDA runs both ways; by claiming the case had no merit, Cain has broken it and given the women's lawyers reason to argue that their NDA should be waived.

Now, stop trying to change the subject. We're not talking about whether the women deserve hush money. We're talking about how Cain bungled this from a PR perspective.

Gotten out in front of what???? He can call them liars...not so good. Deny unspecified charges...not so good. Come on, you call this fair?

The charges made by the women were specified and the NRA copped to a deal. That is undisputed.

On the other hand, maybe those women need to return what some might call "hush money". No "hush", no money.

Hush money? The money was paid as a settlement by the NRA to keep Cain out of court.

Hush money? The money was paid as a settlement by the NRA to keep Cain out of court.

Yes, that would be "hush money." ..Paying the women to keep their mouths closed, and not make a bigger deal out this in court.

Hey, guess what?

"the women" haven't said @!$%#.

Isn't that why you're on here bitching? Because they won't talk about the incident (that THEY didn't bring up in the media, BTW)?

It's not true if YOU don't know the facts? Who the hell are YOU? (Sounds like the same "logic" used by the birthers, huh?)

#3.10

*** My second favorite post of the day.

3.10, I just watched a video purporting one of the women (the incident was from 1999) speaking through an attorney.

That was a long time ago! I would imagine many of our current leaders, possibly even the president, might have said something less 'kosher' than is to be considered proper 12 years ago.

On another note, a commentator in the video pointed out that Cain, Palin and Bachman are 'vehicles,' at this point, and that is all I have to say about that! :)

Vehicles? More like tools....

"container"... seems so.

That was a long time ago! I would imagine many of our current leaders, possibly even the president, might have said something less 'kosher' than is to be considered proper 12 years ago.

Perry, Huntsman, Obama, Pawlenty, Ryan, Shelby, Daniels, Christie, Paul to name a few don't have women coming forth from their past with such allegations, so why should Cain not be looked at with an extra close eye? All those people have been in politics for years but have managed to avoid sensational headlines.

More often than not where there is smoke there is fire.

True, Fla Pat.

I don't defend the man, I just defend proof over assertion.

It does start to appear as though he might have been pursuant to some unethical conduct in the late 90s. Anyone can 'say' anything, and when the wealthy are involved, it is often questionable (but I'm not saying that I necessarily think it is - I just need 'proof'). I thought Socrates made the point quite well in saying this:

Is there some secret way of refuting unspecified charges by an unspecified person while being held to an unspecified gag order regarding the unspecified charges? In other words, how exactly can anyone deliver a knockout punch to something as unsubstantial as air?

I just need 'proof'). I thought Socrates made the point quite well in saying this:

The charges have now been confirmed by the 4th woman and the lawyer for the 2nd who said today that Cains actions towards his client were very similar.

Put a fork in Hermie, the pizza man is done.

Put a fork in Hermie, the pizza man is done.

I think so, too. Once these scandals start to escalate, the 'ride' is usually over.

I still don't think 'free speech' is anything more than that -- free to say whatever, not proof of what actually happened. That is also in reference to other things, not just this issue.

I still don't think 'free speech' is anything more than that -- free to say whatever, not proof of what actually happened. That is also in reference to other things, not just this issue.

Hey, deny the evidence if you choose.

And in the meantime I'd suggest you look up the term "slander" and what it means in our jurisprudence. We are not free to say whatever we want.

I've never been involved in that type of litigation, so I don't know what actually happens in the courtroom. I would imagine slander would require 'proof,' and even if there was a 'witness,' how could we feel justified in honoring their testimony knowing that they could have been bribed? - I wouldn't trust the system to be fair and accurate, as a result.

Also, I don't see it mentioned in the online defs, but I thought it was said that it has to be related to 'harming' one's business or profession, or in other words, it's only slander if it causes monetary harm??

Socrates, I know this is off-topic from Herman Cain, so I won't pursue this issue to not derail.

how could we feel justified in honoring their testimony knowing that they could have been bribed?

So you don't trust our system at all then.

There is no "evidence". We continue to wait for it, and yet...and yet...Clinton not only was elected once, but twice.....hmm.

As I said before, sounds to me like diversity is a problem for some...sometimes cultural differences result in misunderstandings...

You really are incapable of seeing beyond your pre-wired ideology.

Yesterday a woman spoke out and described what Hermie did to her. Shortly thereafter the lawyer for woman #2 held a press conference and confirmed that his client experienced a similar experience.

As to diversity, in 2008 America elected it's first black President in a landslide. Those certainly weren't racists or people with a problem with diversity who overwhelming, actually historically, turned out to vote for him.

You don't know squat about diversity.

So you don't trust our system at all then.

That would be 'mostly' correct. Not just the issue of bribery, but I also don't believe it's possible for a human conscience/emotional state to 'completely' wipe the slate clean. Emotion is a part of 'reasoning,' in my opinion. We would always be prejudiced and have preconceived notions, no matter how much we care 'not' to admit that. We judge others not just by what they say and do, but by many things, and they might not be relevant to the issue.

I just watched Cain's press conference.

@!$%#ing hilarious!

What's he going to say when she comes up with proof that he DOES know her and DID meet with her?

It's also funny that he pointed out that he brought notes to go over "all the points" and "not miss anything", Considering "everything" was that he "never did anything wrong with anybody" and "doesn't even know who that woman is".

Anyone who needs notes to remember those two "key points" is just too @!$%#ing stupid to be in charge of ANYTHING, let alone this nation.

So far my analysis of those from the Left seems to be spot on...I don't think it will change, but I'm still willing to give it a go.

Those from the left, those from the left, those from the left, those from the left, those from the left, Those from the left, Those from the left, Those from the left, Those from the left, Those from the left, Those from the left, Those from the left, Those from the left, Those from the left, Those from the left, Those from the left, Those from the left, Those from the left, ........

Those "from the left" seem to encompass a vast majority of the American people.

Unions see Ohio victory as springboard for resurgence, boost for 2012 election
By a nearly 2-1 margin, Ohio voters repealed a new law that would have severely limited the bargaining rights of more than 350,000 teachers, firefighters, police officers and other state employees.

Mississippi's "Personhood Amendment" fails at polls

The so-called "personhood" initiative was rejected by more than 55 percent of voters

But, back on topic:

Buh-Bye Pizza Guy

Herman Cain may or may not be guilty of sexual harassment, but he will certainly be taken down by it. It's hard to see how the pizzaman can refuse to talk his way out of accusations dating from years before he began his quest for a television show... er... the presidency.

Although the polling is apparently still working in Cain's favor, it can't last, and think about this: what else is there we don't know about? If Cain thought he'd skate through without having to deal with four, count 'em, four harassment settlements, what else is the Hermanator in denial about?

Y'all have a nice day now....

Why don't you point out "your analysis of the left", professor?

Why don't you point out "your analysis of the left", professor?

What analysis? There is no such thing as a monolithic "left".

I would say though that given the bent of some people here, cloistered in a small self-identified far right corner, that most people are to the "left" of them. The farther right you get, the bigger "the left" gets.

yawn....no irony when a person who claims to be a troll suggests he should be taken seriously.

No irony intended, none expressed. Get a thesaurus and look up the meaning of words before you use them.

Wow..that's hilarious coming from someone on the side of abortion and same-sex marriage! Even a little kid knows it's wrong to kill babies and for men to marry men - but the "Right" is insane? In the last 35 to 40 years..it's the Left that has changed - abortion on demand, homosexuality lauded, and same-sex marriage supported (to name a few). And no, you guys aren't irredeemably wrong - you can still be redeemed.

It's amazing how you guys - The Left - tell blatant lies against the Right, though. But can't say it's very surprising..considering how backward in your thinking you guys are on so many subjects.

James... You are scare of Gay people. Now that is funny. You do know that Gay people are Reps too. Get a clue

Also if abortion is murder then there are a lot of women walking around free. You need to get over your hate because it is eating you alive.

What is the Left lying about

But can't say it's very surprising..considering how backward in your thinking you guys are on so many subjects.

LMAO!

Yes, because it's not backwards at all for 2,000 year old mythologies to rule a nation of freedom in the 21st century, which is what so many on the right would love to see happen.

Little kids do know killing babies is wrong...luckily, abortion does no such thing.

Only children who are taught that gay marriage is "bad" will believe that. Otherwise, we are -all- born without prejudices, preconceived notions, or hatred of people who are different.

This story is a non sequitur, because it's already been shown that Cain's own camp thinks Perry is the one who started the entire issue, so your rant is a bit misplaced, but thanks for trying. 8)

I no the term "non disclosure" quite well maybe you should explain it Cain? Seems to me he kept talking about the issue when he could have ended the issue early Monday Morning.

Why is not the right going after Cain with the same zeal about asking the NRA to release the documents as they did about PRes Obama's birth certificate?

James you seem to have a firm recall of history. Who employed the Southern Strategy in the late 1960's?

would also peddle the ridiculous LIE that Republicans and Democrats magically switched mindsets one day

In your opinion why wouldn't black americans run toward the Republican party if as you implied the Democrats of today have done so much against them today?

Would it not be relevant to say people vote their best interests based on what they have seen and the republican party have have had since the late 60's to convince more than 2% of the black population (today's numbers) to see just what the Republican Party has to offer?

As for Coulter she knew exactly what she was saying and it was about ownership in the possesive way not in the we as he is one of us equally.

James you seem to have a firm recall of history. Who employed the Southern Strategy in the late 1960's?

My friend, lets be honest..every Democrat today tries to get every vote he/she can - they try to get the pro-life vote, the Christian vote, and every other vote that will help elect them to power. And so does every Republican - they want the pro-abortion vote, the gay vote..any vote that will help them get and keep power. But, seeking your vote DOESN'T mean I agree or support your position on abortion..or gay marriage. Conversely, Democrats seeking the pro-life vote doesn't mean that the Democrat is pro-life, they're just trying to get elected.

That's what happened in the politics of the South in the late 60's to early 70's. The Democratic Party saw the writing on the wall and got on board with the Civil Rights Movement in the 60's. The Republican Party was ALREADY on board with that movement - a greater percentage of Republicans voted for the '64 Civil Rights Act and '65 Voting Rights Act than did Democrats. There were many southern Dems that were pissed when the federal government forced the southern states to acquiesce and stop overtly opposing the rights of blacks. The "Southern Strategy" attempted to lure some southern Dems to vote Republican - as a strategic maneuver to get more votes. They talked of "states' rights" - and this ONE political ploy is WHAT the Democratic Party has used to re-write history and to paint themselves as the Emancipators of blacks (which is a blatant LIE) and Republicans as blacks' Oppressors (another blatant LIE).

In your opinion why wouldn't black americans run toward the Republican party if as you implied the Democrats of today have done so much against them today? Would it not be relevant to say people vote their best interests based on what they have seen and the republican party have have had since the late 60's to convince more than 2% of the black population (today's numbers) to see just what the Republican Party has to offer?

Black people do not run towards the Republican Party today because of LYING so-called "Black leaders" -- the Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton types, the leadership of the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus, local pastors and a biased media. Everywhere a black person looks he's told that Dems love blacks and the poor, and that Republicans hate blacks and love the rich! No where..are black people told the TRUTH concerning the political parties. It's as if there's a grand conspiracy to deceive black Americans - that's why they vote at over a 90% rate, and most of the blacks who don't vote regularly or at all would vote Democratic also because that's what blacks are taught. Whenever anyone says differently -- we're told not to trust them. And the thing that clinches this Grand Deception is the media -- the liberal "biased in favor of Democrats" media! An honest media could clear the mess up in a year's time -- but, of course they're not honest and actively work to help the Dems year in and year out. Plus, they'd have to challenge black libs such as Jesse, Al, and groups like the NAACP -- and the media lacks the integrity to do so..all but Fox News.

ONE political ploy is WHAT the Democratic Party has used to re-write history and to paint themselves as the Emancipators of blacks (which is a blatant LIE) and Republicans as blacks' Oppressors (another blatant LIE).

James I partly agree with this statement. Yes it was the Republicans that were the emancipators "back then" but both parties changed or switched the racists of the democrats left to become dixiecrats and then republicans and those republicans became democrats of what used to be republicans. The period that both parties try to claim as "we helped black americas" is a matter of which point of time you are talking about. It is disingenious for democrats to claim they freed blacks just as it is the same as republicans to say they have the best interests of black americans today.

Black people do not run towards the Republican Party today because of LYING so-called "Black leaders"

That is an opinion of republicans because a majority of black people can see through the "dishonest rhetoric" of the republican party and it has never really changed its message over the years. What is a LIE is that republicans "truly" want the black vote but to convince enough that they (republicans) care about them and to vote republican.

As for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton....they have not been on my favorites list for along time. As for the NAACP, CBC, and so called liberal or biased media we will have to agree to disagree. As for ministers the republicans have used them as well but that is assuming that just because a minister says republicans are anything their members think for themselves and vote the same way.

Everywhere a black person looks he's told that Dems love blacks and the poor, and that Republicans hate blacks and love the rich!

Honestly you are partially right....where you might be wrong is the lessor of the two evils is the Democrat party with all its issues. Again the republicans have a poor track record with treatment of black republicans and black democrats see if you treat black republicans (Watts, Powell) badly that doesn't say much to how you would treat the vast majority.

No where..are black people told the TRUTH concerning the political parties.

Well it certainly is not going to come from the republicans and especially FOX.

all but Fox News.

This network is probably IMO one of the biggest problem in why black americans don't like republicans. If you look at Fox News you don't see very very few representation of black commentators (Juan Williams is a republican playing a moderate Democrat) or strong guests (exception Lamont Hill on Oreilly) who is typically yelled over by the nighttime hosts on a regular basis. Again I am semi fan of Jackson/Sharpton who appear often as though they speak for all. There are others that could be asked but their reputations would prevent them from showing up on Foxnews.

It is irrefutable that the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of 64/65 were passed by Democrats. African Americans know this. It is also irrefutable that certain Republican's (including but not limited to Rand Paul) would repeal those acts if they could.

There is a reason that African American's and Hispanic American's vote overwhelmingly Democrat. To say that it is because they are fooled by Democrats is demeaning to them and they know it.

Not from the figures...and facts....but other than that.....lol....irrefutable.

What figures and facts?

Both acts were pushed through by Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat. Do you wish to refute that?

The entire premise of this "article" is complete crap. Did Jew's call it antisemitism when Anthony Weiner got into trouble? No. He was just a congressman who screwed up.

Herman Cain is being pilloried for what he did and his ham handed handling of the issue all week. The only racism involved is from the right bringing race into the issue.

The idea that Cain is in trouble because of racism is absurd. He's in trouble because three women accused him of inappropriate behavior with two cases having to be settled for monetary relief. There is only one more thing about this issue, Cain is completely unqualified to be President and anyone with any common sense knows it. The only reason that he's even still in the race is that Romney is repugnant to conservatives, which makes him repugnant to almost everyone.

If Romney was perceived to be an honest man Cain would be down there in single digits.

That's all there is to it.

The left is getting involved with reproduction rights, and getting in the bedrooms of America with all this crap......???

Good grief.... are they really for real?

That's sarcasm, right?

You'll note..well probably not....I mention the term Conservative? We've not only got the hypocricy of the story, but the hypocrisy of the Left defending it.

More gibberish.

Super....4 times on Monday...he needed to get his story less crooked.....perfect for the right wing so what is your problem with his story/s

Exactly.

Sorry to break it to you folks, but there's only ONE version of the truth.

(What version of this story is Herb on today?)

It really shouldn't matter is the "breaking news" was that Cain farted loudly in church. The "news" is that he can't even pick ONE lie and stick with it. If he's too @!$%#ing stupid to say "it wasn't me" or "that woman is a liar" and stick with the story, then he's probably too @!$%#ing stupid to be the leader of the free world, dontchyathink?

I think two women took advantage of 'him' possibly. The alleged crimes sound like innuendo was involved, perhaps; unprofessional, yes... but receiving packages in the five-figure range sounds absurd, imo, for 'making someone feel uncomfortable.' If it was groping, actively pursuing, inviting an encounter, or flirting with 'intent'.. yes.

CL1 you sound like a republican that will defend a republican that otherwise if it was a democrat you would be raisind CAIN?

Well, I can't say for sure, of course.

I'm a fairly reasonable person, and I don't think anyone should be taken advantage of - man or woman with no regard to race or creed.

I really don't agree with most social lawsuits; most seem like a scam and just make attys wealthy.

Do you think Cain....(lol).......has been taken advantage of?

Cain is an opportunist that those that don't look like him will take advatage of.

Yes, I would say it looks like he was taken advantage of, if the way the highlight reads is true.

I'm not defending Cain because he is Republican (I don't think I care for him, from the little I know); I would have the same opinion if anyone was sued for saying something that was perceived as offensive. As I mentioned in 13.1 at the end, it's more 'conduct' that I see as causing harm.

So you think that he did something so heinous to warrant a five-figure retribution?

So you think that he did something so heinous to warrant a five-figure retribution?

It appears the association felt the figure was a deal, or why offer it. They and their lawyers had the details we all lack and they agreed to settle with the woman/women. We can only assume they thought it would cost them much more (either financially or from a PR stand point) if the cases were heard before a jury.

We can only assume they thought it would cost them much more (either financially or from a PR stand point) if the cases were heard before a jury.

That is how I have always viewed deals like this involving wealthy people; however, the question I asked DS12 was if he/she thought that amount was ethical retribution for "innuendo." Personally, I think a politician gives in on things like this to prevent a big media blow-up. Similar to how some that had adulterous affairs, decided to just leave office, than be put through it while in office.

I probably won't continue; I don't like over-doing my presence on the Columns.

It appears the association felt the figure was a deal, or why offer it. They and their lawyers had the details we all lack and they agreed to settle with the woman/women. We can only assume

Actually, we can't assume that. The cost of litigation and the negative publicity warranted the settlement. This is something that the media understands, it's the cost of doing business in our politically correct culture. This flimsy "evidence" would never have been used by the media to bash and bring down a Democrat's presidential campaign.

Media bias on display -- what has been revealed DOES NOT warrant the tone nor degree of coverage that we've seen.

This flimsy "evidence" would never have been used by the media to bash and bring down a Democrat's presidential campaign.

Media bias on display -- what has been revealed DOES NOT warrant the tone nor degree of coverage that we've seen.

I agree. I believe that was Socrates's point as well.

This flimsy "evidence" would never have been used by the media to bash and bring down a Democrat's presidential campaign.

#1, the evidence isn't flimsy, there's proof positive that on at least two occasions the NRA made settlements with two women over harassment issues instigated by Cain.

#2, the loudest cries have come from the right in trying to defend Cain as being the victim of racism.

#3, the reason this all came out is that it appears, at least Cain thinks so, that one of his Republican rivals, namely the really racist Rick Perry, leaked this stuff.

"The left" had nothing to do with this media frenzy. Had "the left" been sitting on this info it would have waited for the unlikely event that this total moron would be nominated ("the left" would like nothing better) and then unload it.

It's damning how quickly "the right" pulls the race card.

however, the question I asked DS12 was if he/she thought that amount was ethical retribution for "innuendo."

You are assuming the evidence in question was only "innuendo." Since none of us have the details the principles have, that is an unfair question. It cannot be answered definitively. If in fact the behavior went beyond "innuendo" the amount may be way less than might be deserved.

The evidence of which you speak is innuendo

The evidence is settlement agreements.

Either way, Cain will be held to account and this will dog him until he starts telling the full truth about what transpired. If he doesn't this will rage on. And if these women choose to speak out Cain's campaign is over.

So you think that he did something so heinous to warrant a five-figure retribution?

Apparently the NRA did. They are the ones that paid.

multi, as I stated in 13.7:

Personally, I think a politician gives in on things like this to prevent a big media blow-up.

True, they are the ones that paid. The NRA may have used similar thinking.

I just don't always think that means a victim is necessarily 'guilty,' it could have been capitulation to sweep the issue under the rug, and whether the two women sued the NRA or HC, makes a difference. HC might not have had a choice in the outcome.

I don't think the details of conjecture are what the article is about, though, do you?

I thought the point was more as James Ward stated:

This flimsy "evidence" would never have been used by the media to bash and bring down a Democrat's presidential campaign.

Media bias on display -- what has been revealed DOES NOT warrant the tone nor degree of coverage that we've seen.

the question I asked DS12 was if he/she thought that amount was ethical retribution for "innuendo." Personally, I think a politician gives in on things like this to prevent a big media blow-up.

CL1 I think the amount was payment to avoid negative PR for the organization and a quick way to keep it quiet to the NRA's benefit. Cain should have not given in and continued to speak earlier in the week and now change to not speaking on it again. He should have kept his mouth shut on Monday or better yet constructed a plan in the 10 days politico gave him to respond.

This flimsy "evidence" would never have been used by the media to bash and bring down a Democrat's presidential campaign.

Media bias on display -- what has been revealed DOES NOT warrant the tone nor degree of coverage that we've seen.

But of course it does. The American people are obsessed with sex. Most every "scandal" is sexual in nature with financial scandals taking a weak second.

Cain wasn't accused by one women, the NRA settled with two and there's a third that is saying that she was abused too. Of course this is a national story. It wouldn't matter who the candidate was, this would be news. And of course the press is on it because the people love a good sex scandal. That's all there is to it.

DS12----Yes, I agree that the payment was to hopefully avoid negative PR. I think the amount of payment makes the situation look worse than it appears to have been, i.e. "gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable"
was my point.

I agree HC blew it by not following-up sooner.

there's a third that is saying that she was abused too.

multi, there are a lot of low-lifes in the world that will try anything rip off the wealthy, if they think they can. A more virtuous person would never pull stunts like this, nor would they want to draw this kind of unethical attention towards themselves, imo. "innuendo"... the punishment should fit the crime.

But again, you're using logical fallacy to keep from staying on-point. :)

multi, there are a lot of low-lifes in the world that will try anything rip off the wealthy, if they think they can. A more virtuous person would never pull stunts like this, nor would they want to draw this kind of unethical attention towards themselves, imo. "innuendo"... the punishment should fit the crime.

What logical fallacy? Is that a new term you just learned? How have I strayed off point?

These women have declined to go public. There is no evidence whatsoever that any of them have "pulled a stunt". Their insistence on maintaining their anonymity about an event that happened years ago before Cain was known outside the restaurant world lends all kinds of credibility to their claims being legitimate.

Their is lots of evidence that the irrational argument that this is somehow about racism is a red herring though.

The fallacy is that the details of "conjecture" aren't the point of the article (and you know that isn't the premise); 'why' he is being subjected - is the point.

'why' he is being subjected - is the point.

He is running to be POTUS for God sake. An issue regarding character was made public and people want an explanation.

"Proof" of a character-flaw requires more than just winning or arbitrating a lawsuit; justice is merely a judgement, not infallible proof.

i.e. look at Congressman Weiner; he might not know how to properly use his body parts - but he was pretty good at his job (so the Libs tell us), right!

Sorry, but I separate home and work life ethics, and know that one doesn't have to influence the other.

Darn -- I wasn't going to over-post.

multi and Fla Pat -- is there anyone else here you can pick on?! LOL

CL1,

Please do not think I am trying to pick on you. It is just that questions were brought to light and the voters deserve an explanation. It is that simple. Some of the women were paid a settlement and contractually required to remain silent about the issues, many find that curious. There are no trick questions, hidden agendas, or gotcha moments - just a desire to understand.

As for myself, I have added incentive for Cain to be the GOP nominee. I think he would be much easier to beat than Romney in 2012.

Have a good evening CL.

Please do not think I am trying to pick on you

Fla Pat... I was just joking (why I used the "LOL"). That "silency" clause is something many use as a bargaining chip, it appears. It would seem to make sense with such a large pay-out. Again, I don't believe he actually "did" anything as was intimated in the Politico report; took verbal advantage of certain moments? ..Could be. ..Is that proper? No. I doubt who he was flirting with or his wife, appreciated it, but that doesn't mean he should be sued, is a dispicable, horrible person, or any such thing.. it just means that he's not the most desirable type of man to be 'socially' involved with or married to.

Thank you and have a good evening - to you, as well.

The fallacy is that the details of "conjecture" aren't the point of the article (and you know that isn't the premise); 'why' he is being subjected - is the point.

Because he's the current front runner for the Republican presidential nomination, that's why. Because he gave the story legs by changing his story four times in two days, that's why.

Seems to me we have a serious lack of acceptance for diversity here. Perhaps cultural mores played a role...who knows?

You don't but you assert that you do.

Because he's the current front runner for the Republican presidential nomination, that's why.

I agree; it's legal, bought and paid for media slander designed to take down the opposition (similar to taking out the oppositions articles and comments on Newsvine:) - using bias and conjecture, not proof of 'written' statements for us all to scrutinize. Just because the 'others' didn't get 'caught' doing something similar, if the allegations are true, doesn't mean they are in better character and judgement standing. I judge a person on his qualifications for the job, and that is not a part of anything remoted to his/her desire to 'flirt.' As previously pointed out - his body language was in the form of undertones --not advances..""gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable"

"Proof" of a character-flaw requires more than just winning or arbitrating a lawsuit; justice is merely a judgement, not infallible proof.

The "character flaw" that has been revealed in this situation is that Cain is a @!$%#ing liar (and a bad one at that) and too indecisive and just plain stupid to handle even a situation of this small magnitude.

Do you think THAT is an issue as well as the fact that he may well also be responsible for the sexual harassment of multiple women that he worked with over a number of years?

Or you can keep pretending that he's handling this great and it shows his true leadership (or whatever other fairy tales you'd like to keep telling yourself)

Face it kids...

This one's a losing horse too, move on to the next...

I judge a person on his qualifications for the job, and that is not a part of anything remoted to his/her desire to 'flirt.'

Of course it does. Sexual harassment goes right to a man's leadership ability and maturity including even putting yourself in a position of being accused. I've been an employer for many, many years and have always been careful about how I represent myself to my employees, customers and other stakeholders. This is a basic tenant of leadership.

As previously pointed out - his body language was in the form of undertones --not advances..""gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable"

Exactly. And the disqualifies him from being considered for any leadership position by me. Although, of course, we have no idea what really transpired as none of the details have been made public, except of course Cain speaking out the way he did in violation of the confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses of the agreement.

He was 'caught' or exposed before taking Office, yet, I don't see how that makes him of different character from the many that were already in Office that were of similar character (that were excellent presidents in many ways - JFK, Clinton). Cain, who I think could possibly be a lusty, creepy old man, but nonetheless, so have been others, and many others will continue to surface in the future. My point is that he is no different in character - he just got 'caught.' ..And someone's sexuality should not be a judgement for how well they can perform their job.

And someone's sexuality should not be a judgement for how well they can perform their job.

It is not about sex, it is about power. That's why more often or not, victims are subordinates to the abuser.

#13.32

He was caught, that's all that is pertinent.

This Is What Happens When Gloria Allred Gets Her Hands On Your Sex Scandal

Here they come....more on the way I'm sure.

You know, there's an old expression; "God gave man a brain and a penis but only enough blood supply to use one at a time". Herm wasn't paying attention.

It is not about sex, it is about power. That's why more often or not, victims are subordinates to the abuser.

I agree, Roy. Yet, when we intentionally put someone in power, placing them on a pedastal, giving them wealth and status in addition to that "power," it would seem to be human nature, in general, to take take advantage. Some get caught, others don't.

multi,..... I agree with what you said in 13.34.

Since man can only use one at a time, that might be why our President comes equipped with a "Cabinet!" :) I just hope the bulk of the medicine doesn't start with "T" and "V".

Not me..., yet, every Administration seems to come with positives and negatives (with Obama's being the first one that I don't see 'any' positives!). I guess it depends on how much the positives affect us that causes us to see the benefits. i.e. I wasn't a fan of Clinton, yet that was certainly a nice run on the stock market! I don't know if it was just the FED's doing, or if Clinton had much part in it.

Way to change the subject again, buddy...

How about addressing THIS issue?

"they did it too" doesn't cut it.

Still with the "they did it too"? Even in a response claiming that you "agree"?

pathetic.

You really can't even see your own hypocrisy, can you?

Oh well, at this point, I pretty much expect it from you...

Carry on!

Not that you'd understand...but that's what I'm here for.

Like I said, one trick pony.

DNFTT Socrates.....

Are you talking TO him, or ABOUT him?

DNFTT Socrates.....

Oh please - please take this persons advice and stop these inane posts and comments. Please.

See Socrates? The trolls are loose and have little substantive to articulate.

The idea that there is racism involved in calling out Cain's misdeeds is absolute racism. He's not being called out for hi s race, he's being called out for his conduct. It wouldn't matter what color he is, any candidate would be called out about sexual impropriety.

Nefariousone, I love how you talk as if you know what you're talking about -- but you don't!

I haven't seen anyone talking about racism..the point has been made that a "liberal black or white candidate" wouldn't have gotten this "Crazed Cain treatment" from the media -- which is valid and correct. Now, you may be too blind or dishonest to see that -- but it's true non the less.

John Edwards' 2008 campaign, and "Slick Willie" Bill Clinton's campaign proves the point perfectly -- both had very well sourced sexual scandals exposed as they ran for president, but the media practiced restraint and caution giving them every benefit of the doubt. We haven't seen the same with Cain, nor would we have seen it if it were involving Palin or other conservatives.

I know racism when I see it and Rush Limbaugh is an out and out racist pig. Anyone who sides with him in this is only showing their own racism.

And you're obviously suffering from Rush Limbaugh Derangement Syndrome, as well.

I haven't seen anyone talking about racism

Uh, excuse me, the title of this "article" is "The Lynching of Herman Cain".

From the "article":

Is it really true that every Black Conservative of note is a secret sexual predator?

The term used is "black conservative", not conservative, "black conservative". I didn't bring race into this, the author did.

I haven't seen anyone talking about racism..the point has been made that a "liberal black or white candidate" wouldn't have gotten this "Crazed Cain treatment" from the media -- which is valid and correct. Now, you may be too blind or dishonest to see that -- but it's true non the less.

Any Republican front-runner, at this point in the campaign, would have gotten the same scrutiny. It doesn't matter what color he is. No one called anyone antisemitic when political opponents and the press pilloried Anthony Weiner for his improprieties. But because Cain is black there must be racism involved; I don't think so.

John Edwards' 2008 campaign, and "Slick Willie" Bill Clinton's campaign proves the point perfectly -- both had very well sourced sexual scandals exposed as they ran for president, but the media practiced restraint and caution giving them every benefit of the doubt.

You kidding, right? It was the National Enquirer who first exposed Edward's affair. The press ran unrestrained with it.

As for Bill Clinton; it was all over the press during his campaign. The right brought it up and exploited it to the hilt. They just couldn't make any of stick.

Your claims have no basis in fact.

And you're obviously suffering from Rush Limbaugh Derangement Syndrome, as well.

The pig man? You bet. I despise everything he stands for. The good news is that it's only the lunatic fringe that listens to him or takes him seriously.

Cain isn't gone yet. Part of his popularity stems from the fact that he doesn't campaign the same way the others do, stands up to the press and stays on message. Now I don't know if he can really do things differently (change) in Washington or not but he certainly doesn't act like your typical politician. Applying normal standards and parameters on his chances may not be practical.

The smear campaigns are just warming up, I just hope the left can come up with something more original and better than Gloria Alred trotting out a new client who never filed a complaint before and has a complete account word for word written down which she had to read to keep straight.

Anxiously awaiting for the muck from the far right to start showing up, Presidential Elections have become comparable to the Olympics, a muckraking competition of world class @!$%#s every four years.

a muckraking competition of world class @!$%#s every four years.

I Couldn't have said that any better! ;)

Ken Starr's Porn Novel

$40 Million of our Tax Dollars at Work!

Ethics is never a strong suit of the Left, nor is consistency

And what qualifies you to judge anyone else's ethics more less millions and millions of people as a group? You know nothing about ethics, you just displayed that quite openly and plainly.

But he was the groper...

You are misinformed but appear to enjoy staying that way. The accuser never said he touched her, she said he made her uncomfortable by mentioning that she was the same height as his wife.

If Cain had actually done something like cheat on his dying wife, father a child with a mistress, and get indicted for conspiracy, lying and breaking campaign laws....or get a blow job in the White House....he'd be more acceptable to the left and the liberal press who like to bury stories like that.

You are misinformed

In yesterday's press conference Ms. Bialek stated clearly that Hermi but his hand up her skirt and tried to grab her genitals.

Multifarious, can't you even keep the stories straight. It was Mr. Bennets client that entered into an agreement not Bialek. How can you have an opinion on something when you don't even know which players are doing what?

ROFLMAO

Live blog transcript of Sharon Bialik Gloria Allred press conference
"Cain reached under my dress to touch my genitals"

Me too.....yawn.

It became clear long ago that facts bore you...

You must really be a far right religious fanatic. Your cry of the more accusations the guiltier the suspect is very reminiscent of four or five little girls of accusing somebody of doing magical things and getting that person burned as a witch.

Far from it. The exact opposite actually and to be sure I could care less about Herman Cain. For that matter, Newsvine is a mere distraction for me. "Conversations" are merely an outlet for me to blow off a little steam. I find little value in all this but it's more fun than watching TV or similar mundane things.

I could care less about Herman Cain. He's not running for President, he's a complete opportunist who learned from Sarah Palin how to make millions fooling right wing lunatic fringe fanatics into thinking that he is running for high public office.

He has no qualifications to be President. Everyone knows that he's not electable. He has no organization to speak of and has not prepared for a serious run. It's all a big joke. He's fooling all you people and you're all falling for it hook, line and sinker. He's basking in the notoriety that the right is giving him and never believed that he's gotten as far as he has in all this.

I can think of nothing better than Herman Cain being the Republican Presidential nominee. President Obama would beat him in a bigger landslide than he beat McCain.

So you people take this as seriously as you want while the rest of us sit back and laugh our butts off. Yes, we're laughing at you.

But the topic of this thread is whether or not there is racism involved in these allegations. This is a notion, given the results of the 2008 election, that is specious on its face. It's nothing more than another fallacy from a very twisted mind.

Well, then, I must thank you for letting us know that this is only fun for you, a mere distraction. Hey that's cool, now we at least we know better than to pay attention to you or give you any credibility. So you enjoy your laughs at us and we will keep on thinking maybe we can make a difference in the world.

we can make a difference in the world.

It would take a rational ability to discern facts from contrived ideological fantasy to do that.

thinking maybe we can make a difference in the world

If you want to make a difference in the world go out there and demonstrate through your actions in the world everyday. Ask yourself what you're doing to actually make the world a better place through your daily actions.

Sitting at your computer writing inane comments and throwing brickbats at an imaginary "the left" isn't doing that.

At the very least if you want to make a difference go start a blog under your real name that tackles the social or political issues that you care about. No one pays any attention to NV except the people in NV because of NV's use of pseudonyms. NV is just meaningless banter that only those in NV takes seriously because using a pseudonym you don't have to take responsibility for what you write.

Your preaching to a guy who just got back from spending two weeks out in the streets looking into the OWs movement, even did a pictorial a few days ago right here on the Vine.

Hey, all you hackers out there on the net, would you advise your friends to use their real names anywhere on the net? Your real friends, not the ones you plan to mess with.

Anonymity on the internet is the best defense to prevent ID theft, stalking and other types of harm. I'm always in shock when someone puts a picture of themselves up, in addition to handing out all of their personal information. And if you are a Fb member, your photo is added to the global database and is subject to being used in advertising (without your knowledge). I would think a hacker could lift the persons photo from any site, take the personal info the victim has provided, and could create a passport, possibly, after doing a paid search to get the rest of what is needed. Additionally, internet comments and info can be gained by employers and others, and could result in job loss.

I blog under my real name as legitimate bloggers do. I belong to two other discussion groups under my real name, Roundtable.com and twosides.co.

There are thousands of references to me on Google. I also have accounts under my real name on LinkedIn, Facebook, Quora and Twitter. All of those require real names.

As far as someone falsifying a passport, that's pretty absurd. Do you have a passport? If you did you'd know that they are virtually impossible to counterfeit.

And, as to the rest, I have nothing to hide. I haven't ever posted anything under my real name that I'm ashamed of or I have any reason to hide.

CL1 your 20.7 tries to seem authoritative but it's nonsense. You want us to think that you know a lot about the Internet but your post belies that.

My comment regarding a passport was speculative, multi. As for the Fb info and what they are doing as of July?, was taken from a link. Do you want me to try to find that Fb link, or are you already familiar with data collection (and even if you opt-out, you are still tracked using your photo)?

That is very fortunate for you that you haven't run into any problems, unfortunately, that isn't the case for everyone.

Which would suggest something different here. We agree, here I doubt you could say the same.

My comments here are available for anyone here to see, as are yours and everyone else's under our chosen pseudonyms. Here, as you prove post after post, anyone can be a lout.

I just have no respect for anything you write here and make that quite clear, in front of everyone here.

Do you publish anything under your real name anywhere? Are you willing to open yourself to true scrutiny? Are you willing to postulate your preposterous positions openly?

I write on universal social justice, corporate social responsibility and innovation. Quite well respected with many followers and subscribers. How about you?

Multi, my info positing the downsides to exposing identity have been taken from various articles, one came from Tyler's Column, so I might be able to find it, but he's so active that I don't want to try. Not just his article, but others have mentioned people getting fired due to an employer reading internet info that caused harm to an employee. In fact, one of our Viner's mentioned his co-worker, a teacher, lost her job this way. That link regarding Fb's tracking methods was real, as well as a link with a quoted statement from a Fb user's husband saying he saw his wife's picture used in an ad.

I'm not making this up, and no, it is not "nonsense." I never claimed I know "a lot" about the internet, and further, there isn't anything about my comment that suggests as such.

If "You" want to put yourself at risk for ID theft or other, that is certainly your decision - but that is rude and assumptive to accuse others wanting to protect themselves as being of less character for not displaying their personal info (as implied towards Socrates - which is "inflammatory"). Any photo and any information could be posted, anyway. That isn't proof of who someone is. Show us a copy of your Birth Certificate and driver's license, as well as a notarized statement of facts, and I 'might' believe you.

Your attacks on Socrates are unjustified. His assertions are based on facts and common-sense. What more do you want or need?

Lmao, my turn to laugh. Take a look around Facebook and then come back and tell us that real names are needed. Guess who I am on Facebbook. Even the same avatar.
You seem proud of your accomplishments, let's say for now the accomplishments you claim. Thousands of references on google.. Quite well respected by many followers and subscribers. Well darn if that is true, you must make more sense in these other locations. How about a link so that we can visit and learn from your wisdom.

Where you really blew it multi is by saying that the idea of falsifying a passport is absurd, that they are "virtually impossible" to counterfeit. The going rate out here in Arizona is $500.00 for a package containing a birth certificate, SS card, Drivers License and passport. The rate in Texas I understand is pretty much the same. I have heard though that it can sometimes run as high as $1200.00 in NYC.

No sense in calling you a liar, you have already admitted to being here just for trolling purposes. Your daddy might be a recognized and respected author somewhere, but unless you are taking journalism in High School or College and write for the weekly school rag, I doubt that you have ever had a darn thing published.

Cl1 your knowledge of how the internet and hackers work is much greater than this guys. He probably doesn't realize that a lot of reporters use psuedonames to protect their private lives, just like actors. Heck a lot of people in the "Personnel Business" do the same thing to keep the nuts from pestering them for jobs outside of the office.

I don't care how many books a person reads, little experience is little knowledge.

Socrates, I have been a little bored and am just passing the time, if you prefer that I stop, you know that I will respect your wishes. Hopefully at some point in time in the future this guy will be able to look back on this and laugh at himself, just like many of his friends who thought he had internet savvy are doing now.

I doubt that you have ever had a darn thing published.

Quite wrong. On this and all accounts in your little rant. BTW: I graduated from college in 1969.

As for what Socrates1 publishes, it's mostly incoherent drivel and widely ridiculed for being such.

The going rate out here in Arizona is $500.00 for a package containing a birth certificate, SS card, Drivers License and passport.

Go buy one one of those phony passports and try using it. See what happens.

Guess who I am on Facebbook. Even the same avatar.

Really? I just searched "owlsview" on Facebook and this is what I got: Richard McCullough Owlsview, is that you? If it is it contains your real name. And I would note, you have no "friends" and no activity. http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002964753294&sk=wall

owlsview..

Thank you for the supportive comments. :) You mentioned professions that hadn't occurred to me that would want to protect themselves, as well as pointing out "packages" that could be purchased as an ID kit. (That sure helps the illegals, I imagine:) Thank you for all the info!

I have respect for those that don't post all of their 'business' online, and I will always defend their right to do so; besides, the creative avatars are a lot of fun. Personally, I don't see a need to post a bio either. The Staff has our isp and basic info, and that alone offers enough security for me. I would prefer to choose who I give information to, rather than feel like I have to 'advertise.' :)

Thank you, again, for a nice comment.

Liar Liar pants on fire. Another stupid mistake. It is well known that I am a DA both here and on Facebook. Have been since it's inception. LOL I just realized, Richard McCullough is a friend of mine on Facebook. If you are as old as I am like you claim to be, perhaps you should try bifocals, I wear tri-focals myself, makes it easier to read.

Tell you what, there is a public group called DAs on Newsvine, why don't you just make a little trip over there and ask if I am on Facebook and what my Avatar is.Here I'll give you a link and make it easy for you. Oh and before you make another mistake it is not an exclusive club for conservatives, it's open to the public and many left-wingers are members there.

Computer whiz that you are, I hope you can find your way back.

DA both here and on Facebook

So where's your public profile on Facebook? You told me that you used the same handle and avatar on both Newsvine and Facebook, but that doesn't seem to be the case. What's being a member of a group here on NV got to do with Facebook?

As for what Socrates1 publishes, it's mostly incoherent drivel and widely ridiculed for being such.

Really? Where and by whom...we want proof, mind you! Go ahead, we will wait...

Great post Socrates, I haven't been able to get on much here lately.

Losing control of the majority of the minority votes which they have enjoyed for so long to a "Black Conservative Republican President" would cost them 2/3rds of their base.

I have to agree with multifariousone....

Hilarious. Thanks for the belly laugh. Have a good night now....

Dang if you guys don't keep making the same mistakes. What ideology is blinding me? What does ideology have to do with a persons ability to lead? Or their accomplishments in the business world?
I guess an ideology that judges a man on his accomplishments as opposed to his words makes me irrational.

Cl 1 I guess it is some weird ideology that makes protecting your private life irrational also.

Cl 1 I guess it is some weird ideology that makes protecting your private life irrational also.

Lol, well, it's a good thing that being irrational is highly overrated. :)

Cl 1 I guess it is some weird ideology that makes protecting your private life irrational also.

You both have done a pretty good job of obfuscating this issue - not surprisingly.

Owlsview if you're a DA then there's a public information on you, undoubtedly. Tell me where and I'll figure out who you are.

So fess up and give us the Facebook handle. It sure isn't owlsview as you said it was. Give me the Facebook handle and I'll find all kinds of information on you.....

I am on Facebook as owlsview same avatar. LMAO just how big of a whole do you want to dig yourself. A word of advice, if you are my age don't try telling any of the young people around here you know anything about the internet they'll laugh you out of town, libs and cons both.This is their world .

Oh, and I am not the only person on Facebook without a proper name either. LOL. Want to check me out, you won't find much because there isn't much to find you might as well look up Joe Nobody, because that's me. Besides my security systems could use a good work out, they haven't been tested in awhile.

I am on Facebook as owlsview same avatar.

Then why does a search of "owlsview" on Facebook show no returns?

Either you are or you're not. Make it easy then and just give us a link to your Facebook profile because a search returns nothing.

As a matter of fact a Google search of "owlsview" shows only two mentions both attributed to Newsvine, unless of course you're some sort of outdoors site from Canada....

A Google image search for "owlsview" only shows the avatar being used in NV.....

So, are you telling us the truth or???????

As an active participant over there, it would be a breach of the User Code of Conduct to link or seed from over there.

No it wouldn't. It's no CoH violation to link anywhere.

You made a representation that is untrue.

So you're just lying. There is no Facebook account for owlsview.

If indeed you are a DA I pity the people under your jurisdiction. They are really badly represented. You'll obfuscate and lie to make any point.

Truly disgusting.

multi, "DA" doesn't stand for District Attorney, in this case.

It's the acronym for a Fb group (Dumbass).

(Dumbass).

Now then, that is a CoH violation.

thanks for clearing that up. But owlsview is still a liar. There is now owlsview or DA group in FB.

CL1...no problem with overposting tonite I guess?

multi---What?? ---That is not a violation in 'context' ---That is a name of the group that I was telling you that Owslview is a member of on Facebook, and I *obviously* was not directing that to you or anyone else.

DS12 ---Nope, just feeling the need to support Socrates and Owlsview when they are coming under unjustified attack.

CL1 if you feel the need to support Socrates.....and if Owlsview is along the same lines....no matter what you post you follow those...excuse me...the typical rightwing line...?

DS12.... Well, I don't think anyone, L or R, is typical, imo.

What I mean by that is, if the extremists make up 10-20% on both ends of the spectrum, then the remaining 60-70% of the population is either center-left or center-right, and can have differing views on issues.

I don't view any of the three of us as being extremist, so we're all somewhere in that 60-70%, and I believe we all lean to the right, but I'm not certain. Why do you ask? I've read a few of your comments. Are you left-wing/center or extremist progressive?

multifariousone

owlsview...

As an active participant over there, it would be a breach of the User Code of Conduct to link or seed from over there.

Multi....

No it wouldn't. It's no CoH violation to link anywhere.

You made a representation that is untrue.

Actually it would be a violation because it is one of Newsvines competitors.

So you're just lying. There is no Facebook account for owlsview.

Actually he isn't a lying. I am one of his friends on face book. I guess you're not very bright if you can't even find a simple name on face book.

If indeed you are a DA I pity the people under your jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction? There is no jurisdiction! Everybody on the DA group are free thinkers and everybody is equal.

They are really badly represented. You'll obfuscate and lie to make any point.

Actually I'm quite proud to have such an intelligent and honest person in our group!

Truly disgusting.

What? Your breath?

I can't believe you cannot find a dumbass group on face book. At last count there are at least 15. Do you need some help with your computer?

Good comment, E.T.!!

Socrates...

An apology is possibly in order.

I had noticed in other threads with you that 'said' would use logical fallacy, red herrings, and ad hominem to distract the point of the article. I now realize that side-tracking or derailing is also being used.

He attacked your anonymity and I chose to defend it, as that is something I also value.

I'm sorry that I chose a defense now, as all it did was aid what he was trying to accomplish. Please accept my sincere apology.

Are you left-wing/center or extremist progressive?

Left leaning independent CL1.

As does most of your posts and articles.

"do'

Now I'm a "left leaning independent"? I think not. Nothing about the Left impresses me.

In any event, further comments of a personal nature will be deleted. Feel free to write an article on any subject you wish.

ohhhhh. Coming from someone who posts mostly personal attacks that's pretty tough talk. Can't take the heat again? Why don't you try cutting off comments again....that worked for you last time.

By the way: for anyone who is concerned about personal information on the Internet try this fantastic tool to help you keep track of all your information on the Internet: www.lockerproject.org, it's an extremely valuable and efficient tool for keeping track of everything that's out there.

And by the way: the CoH says nothing about posting links to "competitive" or any other sites. Users are free to post whatever links you like. That's what that little link thingy is, you know that little icon that looks like the link of a chain right here on the editing toolbar. As a courtesy you can always set the target to open in a new browser window.

And owlsview, if you are still uncomfortable posting a link you can always send it through and in system email because, you know, I don't know anything about the Web and I can't find any owlsview on Facebook, which means there is none.

Oh, and by the way CL1, I'm quite aware how anyone could post a phony account on FB. But you seem not to understand the nature of FB suggesting that a pseudonym would work, it won't. Anyone using a pseudonym on FB would have no friends. No one, except those who know your secret pseudonym, would be able to find you and "like" you. And if others knew your pseudonym that would of course blow the anonymity of it. Pseudonym's are in complete opposition to the way FB works.

I have hundreds of FB friends all using their real names. And all of their friends use their real names and all of their friends too. As a matter of fact I've never seen a pseudonym used in FB. Can you show me one? Send an in system email if you are irrationally concerned about a CoH violation (which it appears that you're not by calling me a "dumbass").

Pfffffft! multi you crack me up! Nobody called you a dumbass. The word was used as a proper noun.

Thank you so much E. T. I started to defend myself (again) after reading 23.16, but then look at what happened the last time!! lol Ten posts later, and lots of twisting... :(

..You said it better and more concise than I could have, too!

You're very welcome CL-1. I think multi is just looking for attention.

So do I.

I don't logical fallacy, name-calling and starting flame-wars are going to work on Socrates or the rest of us.

In any event, further comments of a personal nature will be deleted.

LOL....expected that:)

I think multi is just looking for attention.

I only look for attention from people I respect.

So why don't you people respond to the issues raised in 23.16 (if you can)?

Pfffffft! multi you crack me up! Nobody called you a dumbass. The word was used as a proper noun.

dumb-ass

noun Slang: Vulgar.

It's also the name of different groups on different sites.

Funny thing about our language, words can mean different things, and the true meaning of any word is interpreted by the context it is used in.

Funny thing about our language, words can mean different things, and the true meaning of any word is interpreted by the context it is used in.

We agree on that. And to that I would add the intent of the user.

This is extremely hilarious, one thing for sure multi isn't part of any of the regular left-wing groups around here or on the net. Certainly not many friends or they wouldn't let him continue to do this to himself, especially not with the likes of us.

The essence of this article seems to have actually passed us by. Generating more numbers for Socrates is cool, and the only breaking the COH is multi himself. I haven't reported him, not really worth the time.

The only problem, if he is my age it's a bit of a bummer because he is giving credence to those that say us old folks are losing it.

Mr. Multifariousone, let me make this loud and clear, I would never call you, refer to you or even think of you as a DA, you are no where near qualified and I well not insult those who are by even hinting at such.

Good points, owls.

multi,

dumb-ass

noun Slang: Vulgar.

Different than Dumbass which was used as a proper noun, did you notice there was no hyphen?

Nice try though!

You are right canary, don't you think you should at least try and help multifariousone ? Maybe you are privately. I mean he does appear to be at least a little left wing, but either he is pretending or is in so far over his head it almost isn't worth laughing at anymore.