Originally Posted by ASB65

If he sexual harassed 3 women, and now we have a 4th woman who turned him down when he tried to get her to have sex with him for a job, I just wonder how many woman he coerced into having sex with him to get a job or keep a job but can't speak out about it be considered consensual. Kind of makes you rethink this whole idea of "consensual sex" between a boss and employee.

Yep, he is pig. But I feel sorry for his wife and kids. But then men of his ilk generally only think about themselves anyway. So I stand by my original statement. You can usually figure out a person's character by the way he treats people around him in personal life...Sorry, but these things are the public's business when selecting a president. I don't want a man who has so little respect for women as my president.

PS: This comment is not directed at you, Teddy. But at other people who say a president's sex life is his personal business.

I bet you were a big fan of Bill Clinton.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I bet you were a big fan of Bill Clinton.

Couldn't stand him. He is a pig too.

Originally Posted by ASB65

And whether a man merely sexually harasses a woman or actually makes unwanted sexual advances and touches her.....

"Herb" had both covered ... allegedly.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Yeah, sounds more like Bill Clinton. Although an incident of the Kathleen Willey variety, not the ones where Clinton exposed himself or received actual favors from an intern. But since he's not a Democrat with the requisite backing of the media, could be bad for Cain if true.

JPT - Your party held prolonged *impeachment* hearings which dragged every sordid detail out into the light and made much over it at great length. And now you object to be it being done to one of your own? Or are you simply operating from an Us-vs-Them paradigm, i.e. Us = Good and Them = Bad by definition?

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

I don't even know that "going back" to 2-bed, 1-bath bungalows (we live in a 2/1 ourselves, built in 1944) is necessary. What's necessary is for government to stop pushing certain activities as "the right thing to do" and distort market forces with carrots and sticks as they did with pushing home ownership. I think we're repeating the same sort of thing in the current environment that claims everyone needs to go to college -- and with legislators pushing for as many carrots as possible to see to it that everyone goes to college.

I live in such a house myself, built in 1939. If it weren't for the total lack of insulation, I'd consider it nearly perfect. Well, except for the many repairs it needed over the years.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

JPT - Your party held prolonged *impeachment* hearings which dragged every sordid detail out into the light and made much over it at great length. And now you object to be it being done to one of your own? Or are you simply operating from an Us-vs-Them paradigm, i.e. Us = Good and Them = Bad by definition?

Given that he assumed that Amy likes Clinton he seems to assume every "liberal" only cares about sexual assault when a Republican is caught.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

JPT - Your party held prolonged *impeachment* hearings which dragged every sordid detail out into the light and made much over it at great length. And now you object to be it being done to one of your own? Or are you simply operating from an Us-vs-Them paradigm, i.e. Us = Good and Them = Bad by definition?

If Clinton were at the helm of a major corporation and he was fooling around with an intern, and it came to light, he'd be terminated immediately.

Besides he is like the Aerosmith of Presidents, lots of people liked him, but no one can say why. Both were highly overrated.

EDIT: I will take Obama over Clinton smarm any day.

Originally Posted by Odin

Given that he assumed that Amy likes Clinton he seems to assume every "liberal" only cares about sexual assault when a Republican is caught.

Odin, you KNOW he believes liberals are intrinsically evil and are operating from an Us-vs-Them paradigm exclusively. It seems to me there is a Jungian concept that explains this quite nicely, considering the way he himself operates.

"Who knows what evil luuuuuuuurks in the hearts of men! The Shadow knows!"

Originally Posted by Odin

Given that he assumed that Amy likes Clinton he seems to assume every "liberal" only cares about sexual assault when a Republican is caught.

JPT obviously missed my post about what I thought about Clinton and his extracurricular sexual activities a page or so back. No, I don't judge people by what political party they belong to. I judge people by the content of their character. And I don't think much of Clinton's character either.

Obama Now Attempting To Get Each Word Of Jobs Bill Passed Individually

http://t.co/vh2tRAwc

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

JPT - Your party held prolonged *impeachment* hearings which dragged every sordid detail out into the light and made much over it at great length. And now you object to be it being done to one of your own? Or are you simply operating from an Us-vs-Them paradigm, i.e. Us = Good and Them = Bad by definition?

If the allegations are true, I am not defending Cain. Merely noting a double standard.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

If the allegations are true, I am not defending Cain. Merely noting a double standard.

You are not the only one. I also said that I felt like any defenders of Clinton and his sexual escapades had no right to attack Cain on the sexual harassment thing. They can disagree with Cain on other issues but they need to shut their mouths on this one. So we are in agreement on this one.

Now, I on the other hand, have criticized Clinton and his behavior many times on this forum, so I can say anything I want to about Cain on this issue. I have no double standards.

Originally Posted by ASB65

You are not the only one. I also said that I felt like any defenders of Clinton and his sexual escapades had no right to attack Cain on the sexual harassment thing. They can disagree with Cain on other issues but they need to shut their mouths on this one. So we are in agreement on this one.

Now, I on the other hand, have criticized Clinton and his behavior many times on this forum, so I can say anything I want to about Cain on this issue. I have no double standards.

The issue is abuse of power. It seems to be an equal opportunity political problem. I am extremely uninterested in people's sex-lives unless it's an abuse of power. Clinton-Lewinsky? Not necessarily. Clinton-Jones? Most likely. Weiner and his sexting? Ugh. John Edwards? Ugh. Gary Hart--the one who started this? Ugh. John Ensign? Ugh. Larry Craig? Ugh. David Vitter and his prostitutes? Ugh.

Cain and these claims? Potential ugh.

Originally Posted by ASB65

If he sexual harassed 3 women, and now we have a 4th woman who turned him down when he tried to get her to have sex with him for a job, I just wonder how many woman he coerced into having sex with him to get a job or keep a job but can't speak out about it be considered consensual. Kind of makes you rethink this whole idea of "consensual sex" between a boss and employee.

Yep, he is pig. But I feel sorry for his wife and kids. But then men of his ilk generally only think about themselves anyway. So I stand by my original statement. You can usually figure out a person's character by the way he treats people around him in personal life...Sorry, but these things are the public's business when selecting a president. I don't want a man who has so little respect for women as my president.

PS: This comment is not directed at you, Teddy. But at other people who say a president's sex life is his personal business.

I said that, but I wasn't referring to incidents like this. I was referring to consensual encounters.

Originally Posted by annla899

The issue is abuse of power. It seems to be an equal opportunity political problem. I am extremely uninterested in people's sex-lives unless it's an abuse of power. Clinton-Lewinsky? Not necessarily.

Note that it's "not necessarily" and not strictly "no" because any time a superior has sex with a subordinate in a workplace -- even the White House -- there is some question about how truly consensual it was for the subordinate. Thus it becomes an abuse of power in *appearance* even if not always in actuality.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Note that it's "not necessarily" and not strictly "no" because any time a superior has sex with a subordinate in a workplace -- even the White House -- there is some question about how truly consensual it was for the subordinate. Thus it becomes an abuse of power in *appearance* even if not always in actuality.

True. And even worse when it is an intern.

Originally Posted by annla899

The issue is abuse of power. It seems to be an equal opportunity political problem. I am extremely uninterested in people's sex-lives unless it's an abuse of power. Clinton-Lewinsky? Not necessarily. Clinton-Jones? Most likely. Weiner and his sexting? Ugh. John Edwards? Ugh. Gary Hart--the one who started this? Ugh. John Ensign? Ugh. Larry Craig? Ugh. David Vitter and his prostitutes? Ugh.

Cain and these claims? Potential ugh.

I guess everyone looks at these things through a different lens. But the fact that Monica was so young was one of things that really bothered me. I remember myself at age 21 and how easily I was influenced at that time. At 21 if the president of the United States had come on to me, I don't think I would have had the confidence to say "no" back then. There probably aren't too many women walking around who can't recall an unhealthy relationship they had around that time in their lives where some guy took of advantage of them in one way or another. And I'm sure the same can said for men. You work with people this age. You know their maturity level and their reasoning. So I think you probably understand what I'm saying here. So because of Monica's age, I think there could have very well been some abuse of power going on.

I have a nephew about this age now. And if he got involved with a woman who was at least twice his age, I would feel like this woman was taking advantage of him. Especially if she was married and was his boss. To me, it would feel like a definite abuse of power. Even if it was "consensual". And if it was one of my sons, who got involved in this same type of situation at that age. Lord help that woman, because she would most definitely be hearing from me.

As I have said before, a good key to a person's character is to look at how they treat people in their personal lives.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I said that, but I wasn't referring to incidents like this. I was referring to consensual encounters.

But David, how do you know that he didn't coerce her? How do you know that he didn't promise her career advancement in exchange for sexual favors? You don't.

Edit: And furthermore, David. You are a parent. Lets just say hypothetically that when one of your son's was 21 he had gotten an internship at some company. The president of that company was twice his age and was a married woman. And you discovered that while your child was at work, your son was going into that woman's office and performing oral sex on her. Would you have a problem with it? Would you just assume that it was completely consensual? Or would you feel like more than likely this woman was taking advantage of your son? Because, like I said, I would become unglued in that situation.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Ziggy, the government made the 1950s happen as well by making it easier for veterans to get cheap mortgages and encouraging home building. It wasn't just market forces by any means. Alas, folks your age can't even imagine that the government could do the right thing. . .

Of course that argues that the 1950's was 'the right thing'. A contention rather firmly debunked by our subsequent coming-to-awareness of the fact that sprawl, subsidized hydrocarbon-dependency, blissfully-ignorant despoiling of the systems that keep us alive and healthy, and so on are... not right things.

I'm sure it felt like the right thing, back when you got to experience the burning up of the future to keep your childhood quiet, convenient, and climate-controlled. But grownups kind of should take the longer view...

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Ziggy, the government made the 1950s happen as well by making it easier for veterans to get cheap mortgages and encouraging home building. It wasn't just market forces by any means. Alas, folks your age can't even imagine that the government could do the right thing. . .

Yes, but it wasn't actively pursuing policies that actively tried to get everyone to buy a home, even if they weren't prepared for it financially or otherwise. Making it easier to "get in the door" isn't the same thing as trying to convince everyone to go through it. Again, the same goes for college these days.

And don't put words in my mouth as if I can't imagine that government can do the right thing sometimes. I know cynicism about institutions (including government) is an Xer trait, but still...

The counter salvos have begun. This from Cain's campaign.

As Ms. Sharon Bialek has placed herself in the public spotlight through making patently false allegations against Herman Cain, it is only fair to compare her track record alongside Mr. Cain’s.

In stark contrast to Mr. Cain’s four decades spent climbing the corporate ladder rising to the level of CEO at multiple successful business enterprises, Ms. Bialek has taken a far different path.

The fact is that Ms. Bialek has had a long and troubled history, from the courts to personal finances – which may help explain why she has come forward 14 years after an alleged incident with Mr. Cain, powered by celebrity attorney and long term Democrat donor Gloria Allred.

In the courts, Ms. Bialek has had a lengthy record in the Cook County Court system over various civil lawsuits. The following cases on file in Cook County are:
– 2000-M1-707461 Defendant against Broadcare Management
– 2000-M1-714398 Defendant in lawsuit against Broadcare Management
– 2000-M1-701522 Defendant in lawsuit against Broadcare Management
– 2005-M1-111072 Defendant in lawsuit against Mr. Mark Beatovic.
– 2007-M1-189176 Defendant in lawsuit against Midland Funding.
– 2009-M1-158826 Defendant in lawsuit against Illinois Lending.

Ms. Bialek was also sued in 1999 over a paternity matter according to ABC 7 Chicago (WLS-TV). Source: WLS-TV, November 7, 2011

In personal finances, PACER (Federal Court) records show that Ms. Bialek has filed for bankruptcy in the Northern District of Illinois bankruptcy court in 1991 and 2001. The respective case numbers according to the PACER system are 1:01-bk-22664 and 1:91-bk-23273.

Ms. Bialek has worked for nine employers over the last seventeen years. Source: WLS-TV, November 7, 2011

Curiously, if Ms. Bialek had intended to take legal action, the statute of limitations would have passed a decade ago.

Which brings up the question of why she would make such reprehensible statements now?

The questions should be – who is financing her legal team, have any media agreed to pay for her story, and has she been offered employment for taking these actions?

James50

The United Nations' nuclear agency for the first time publicly charged Iran with developing the technologies used to develop nuclear weapons, a move that could lead to increased economic and diplomatic isolation for Tehran.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, in a quarterly report on Iran's nuclear program released Tuesday, specifically outlined its conclusions that Tehran has conducted advanced research on developing a miniaturized warhead that could be delivered by medium-range missiles.

Anyone think Obama should or will pull the trigger to bomb Iran? Implications for 2012 when he does?

James50

Originally Posted by James50

The counter salvos have begun. This from Cain's campaign.

James50

I had earlier forecasted that a woman would come forward, possible not one of the original three. My guess now is that, with this kind of baiting, Cain will draw out one of the three original women.

Bialek made clear that her motivation was to give voice to those three who felt they couldn't come forward. Cain has to hope that the beating-up of Bialek will make the first three shy away from coming forth rather than embolden them to come forward to stand with Bialek. Very high risk for Cain and getting higher.

If he had just come out and said he use to be a ladies' man but his wife had toned him down, he may have been able to save his career as a mini-Palin motivational speaker and Faux News commentator. In our culture, he'll still do better than most as a mini-Palin, but his draw will be considerable less than if he had come clean and moved on.

I think what happen is that he might have actually started to believe he really could be the GOP's answer to Obama and decided to fight this. Again, very high risk, for if one of the original three now comes out, it is over.

Obviously, I'm thinking the confirmation is coming soon. On one of the networks, they interviewed the lawyer for the third woman. Apparently, Bialek had called him first for advice, just giving her first name, Sharon. There's now got to be a very strong connection between all the lawyers representing the four women and some thought about how best to orchestrate a response from them all. With Gloria Allred acting as the conductor, and a ton of money at stake..... well, pass, the popcorn. This has got considerably more life to it, unless Cain is advised by someone he will listen to, and decides to just bow out. I’m not sure who that possible could be though.

But the election is certainly over for him.

Again, the more strategic question is where will his supporters gravitate to. Hopefully, they are completely demoralize and will just fade away.

Originally Posted by James50

Anyone think Obama should or will pull the trigger to bomb Iran? Implications for 2012 when he does?

James50

Hummmm.

I've been watching that one too.
It looks like the Iranians may be close to having a real nuclear capability.

I think that there are too variables this far out t predict how it may affect next year's election.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Hopefully, they are completely demoralize and will just fade away.

I wouldn't count on that.

James50