Cain's numbers drop significantly!

There were far more women with far more corroboration with Clinton. I see a difference, but I don't think it is one that dismisses what he did like your "difference" is...

I think the "difference" you see is based on the partisan glasses you wear.

Jeebus Christ, you have really gone down hill in your debating skills. Yeah, it is those partisan glasses, even though I don't have a party.

Never mind, if I want this kind of debate I will take Yurt off ignore.
 
There are no "ellipsis" in my post....there are no omissions of words or letters.....there are only pauses to rest my fingers ...... I never claimed to be an expert typist....I am an expert in recognizing assholes on-line and you, honey....fit the bill to a "T".............

That would be "ellipses". Plural.
 
It is simply amazing to watch the lefty women all of a sudden become concerned about morality when a conservative black man has unproven sexual harassment allegations.

Ha. Many sexual harassment allegations are "her word against his" because they don't take place in front of an audience. Doesn't mean it didn't happen. And when money changes hands, you can connect the dots.
 
Jeebus Christ, you have really gone down hill in your debating skills. Yeah, it is those partisan glasses, even though I don't have a party.

Never mind, if I want this kind of debate I will take Yurt off ignore.

Right. So far you've offered nothing but "Can't you see a difference?" then you try to lecture me?

Mote eye, splinter... google, bible... find verse.

I'm sorry that reality isn't reflecting what you want here. Many women with corroborating stories came forward with Clinton, three with Thomas without much corroboration... None of the women with Thomas had stories even close to those like Juanita Broderick's.

Reality: Thomas never paid any of them anything, Clinton paid in 1998 (back in the 90s when they were "small" according to Darla in that other thread, and before she gets hyped about late 90s, the National Restaurant Assoc. paid severances in 1999...) a settlement of $850,000.

I see a difference between the two. The accusations against Clinton are far worse and with far more evidence with people like you trying to defend him with vague nonsense. As I said earlier, even NOW (The National Organization of Women) tells me I should pay more attention to Thomas than Clinton yet what he did was far worse.

Partisan colored glasses. Claiming "unaffiliated" doesn't change what shows up on film.
 
"I am not affiliated with a party" :rofl:

No you just support every liberal cause and liberal politician aka democrats. Oh yeah there was that singular republican vote in AK 2010, dictated by the left, so that a more conservative candidate could not win.
 
I don't believe it......only a pig racist would believe it......but its gonna work for you and yours......

Herman will be gone from the presidential scene in the very very near future.....nice work...

I still can't believe it didn't work for you Democrats when you used the same tactic on Clarance Thomas....but then you didn't use a young white blond in that case.....

you're learning....

Get real. Cain had no real chance even before the harassment accusations. He has a few sound bites that resonate with people like you, but the man does not have the breadth of experience required to run this country. Once he moves away from "9-9-9" his deficiencies become painfully apparent. He's not being done in by liberals.

First RWs claimed that the initial allegations are suspect because the women won't go public. Now a woman has come forward, and she's going to be raked over the coals for it, mark my words. It's the same old story, damned if they do, damned if they don't. Cain hasn't helped his case by the way he's handled the issue by forgetting, denying, and then backtracking.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if Thomas were up for SC judge today he'd be sunk, because the one good thing that came out of that debacle was shining a light on sexual harassment in the workplace. It was a learning experience for aggressors and victims both. Perhaps you've forgotten that Hill took a polygraph and passed, while Thomas refused to take the test. Righties claim Thomas was the victim of a high-tech lynching, yet they had no compunction in destroying Hill's reputation with comments that she was a delusional, spurned woman. Anita Hill went through hell during and after the Thomas incident, and the blame for that lands squarely on the shoulders of establishment pols who thought she was a dumb woman they could discredit and push around.
 
Oh, so this post was a lie:

"Our superiority shows in every way , not just grammatical skills regardless of the level of education....the proof is presented here on this board every day....."

You have no superior grammatical skills, you don't know what the hell an ellipsis is, and you are in such bad shape you need to rest your fingers every few words.

Well, it's a good thing I cleared that up then.

So you're familiar with the word "ellipses" but don't what its used for, huh....you shouldn't try to use words when you don't understand its meaning .................


This will help...

el·lip·sis (
ibreve.gif
-l
ibreve.gif
p
prime.gif
s
ibreve.gif
s)n. pl. el·lip·ses (-s
emacr.gif
z) 1. a. The omission of a word or phrase necessary for a complete syntactical construction but not necessary for understanding.

b. An example of such omission.

2. A mark or series of marks ( . . . or * * * , for example) used in writing or printing to indicate an omission, especially of letters or words.

Show me, if you can, in any of my posts in this thread where I used "....." as a mark to indicate an omission of a word or letter...necessary for a complete syntactical construction but not necessary for understanding..

It should be interesting to see how you dig yourself out of this hole.
Its obvious, my grammatical skills are better than yours................hahahaha.
 
Right. So far you've offered nothing but "Can't you see a difference?" then you try to lecture me?

Mote eye, splinter... google, bible... find verse.

I'm sorry that reality isn't reflecting what you want here. Many women with corroborating stories came forward with Clinton, three with Thomas without much corroboration... None of the women with Thomas had stories even close to those like Juanita Broderick's.

Reality: Thomas never paid any of them anything, Clinton paid in 1998 (back in the 90s when they were "small" according to Darla in that other thread, and before she gets hyped about late 90s, the National Restaurant Assoc. paid severances in 1999...) a settlement of $850,000.

I see a difference between the two. The accusations against Clinton are far worse and with far more evidence with people like you trying to defend him with vague nonsense. As I said earlier, even NOW (The National Organization of Women) tells me I should pay more attention to Thomas than Clinton yet what he did was far worse.

Partisan colored glasses. Claiming "unaffiliated" doesn't change what shows up on film.

Juanita Broaddrick? She accused Clinton of raping her back in the '70s. I don't know whether he did or didn't, especially since she recanted her sworn statement, but I wouldn't put it past Clinton to have made a move on her, whether or not it resulted in rape.

Yet it's funny that the media ignored a rape accusation against bush. Margie Schoedinger filed the suit in the early 2000s. Her accusations were bizarre and included kidnapping in addition to rape but nevertheless it didn't get the same amount of press as the Broaddrick story. So we have two women, each accusing a president of rape, one president held to account while the other got a pass. And that's not me wearing partisan glasses, it's fact.
 
Juanita Broaddrick? She accused Clinton of raping her back in the '70s. I don't know whether he did or didn't, especially since she recanted her sworn statement, but I wouldn't put it past Clinton to have made a move on her, whether or not it resulted in rape.

Yet it's funny that the media ignored a rape accusation against bush. Margie Schoedinger filed the suit in the early 2000s. Her accusations were bizarre and included kidnapping in addition to rape but nevertheless it didn't get the same amount of press as the Broaddrick story. So we have two women, each accusing a president of rape, one president held to account while the other got a pass. And that's not me wearing partisan glasses, it's fact.

If those were the only two women who said that Clinton was "inappropriate" with them, then I would actually agree. I'm not "out to get" anybody here. Just placing a bit of perspective on things. Far more than just Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick (I'm guessing you spelled it correctly, I'm going by memory) came out to accuse Clinton of many various activities. Some of his activities were even consensual..
 
el·lipse (
ibreve.gif
-l
ibreve.gif
ps
prime.gif
)n.1. A plane curve, especially:a. A conic section whose plane is not parallel to the axis, base, or generatrix of the intersected cone.
b. The locus of points for which the sum of the distances from each point to two fixed points is equal.

2. Ellipsis.

el·lip·sis
   /ɪˈlɪpsɪs/ Show Spelled[ih-lip-sis] Show IPA
noun, plural -ses  /-siz/ Show Spelled[-seez] Show IPA.

1.
Grammar.
a.
the omission from a sentence or other construction of one or more words that would complete or clarify the construction, as the omission of who are, while I am, or while we are from I like to interview people sitting down.
b.
the omission of one or more items from a construction in order to avoid repeating the identical or equivalent items that are in a preceding or following construction, as the omission of been to Paris from the second clause of I've been to Paris, but they haven't.
2.
Printing. a mark or marks as ——, …, or * * *, to indicate an omission or suppression of letters or words.
 
Get real. Cain had no real chance even before the harassment accusations. He has a few sound bites that resonate with people like you, but the man does not have the breadth of experience required to run this country. Once he moves away from "9-9-9" his deficiencies become painfully apparent. He's not being done in by liberals.

First RWs claimed that the initial allegations are suspect because the women won't go public. Now a woman has come forward, and she's going to be raked over the coals for it, mark my words. It's the same old story, damned if they do, damned if they don't. Cain hasn't helped his case by the way he's handled the issue by forgetting, denying, and then backtracking.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if Thomas were up for SC judge today he'd be sunk, because the one good thing that came out of that debacle was shining a light on sexual harassment in the workplace. It was a learning experience for aggressors and victims both. Perhaps you've forgotten that Hill took a polygraph and passed, while Thomas refused to take the test. Righties claim Thomas was the victim of a high-tech lynching, yet they had no compunction in destroying Hill's reputation with comments that she was a delusional, spurned woman. Anita Hill went through hell during and after the Thomas incident, and the blame for that lands squarely on the shoulders of establishment pols who thought she was a dumb woman they could discredit and push around.


Yeah....I agree. He had no realistic chance of getting nominated, so there was no real reason to demean and ridicule and destroy his character the way the liberal media and the lefties are doing....
Personally, I think Anita Hill over reacted to nothing....and was enlisted especially by the left to destroy the Thomas nomination....sexual innuendo and suggestive banter WAS commonplace in every workplace, where men and women work together....I've even heard it between a group women just among themselves.....its not commonplace any more, thats for sure....and thats a good thing
 
Personally I was waiting to see if Cain could flesh out positions. I read the 999 plan, posted my synopsis as to why it would be problematic and would never pass, then waited to see if something stronger would appear.

There was much to like about such an intelligent person who was clearly not one of the DC elites. And there still may be, if he survives this. I've seen people with much worse stuff coming out against them (I posted a couple from before, another notable would be Edward Kennedy) survive. Saying he's down for the count at this point may be very premature.

I'm hoping that he'll withstand this, and come back swinging with some heftier policy than just the 999 plan, as that will never pass and if it does would be disastrous in the long run.
 
.
el·lip·sis
   /ɪˈlɪpsɪs/ Show Spelled[ih-lip-sis] Show IPA
noun, plural -ses  /-siz/ Show Spelled[-seez] Show IPA.

1.
Grammar.
a.
the omission from a sentence or other construction of one or more words that would complete or clarify the construction, as the omission of who are, while I am, or while we are from I like to interview people sitting down.
b.
the omission of one or more items from a construction in order to avoid repeating the identical or equivalent items that are in a preceding or following construction, as the omission of been to Paris from the second clause of I've been to Paris, but they haven't.
2.
Printing. a mark or marks as ——, …, or * * *, to indicate an omission or suppression of letters or words.


Yeah, yeah....that post was for fun.....lame, I know.....

Bust the fact remains that I never used '......' as an ellipsis in this thread......that I can remember anyway....my posts are complete statements.....(unless I leave a common, well known, famous quote unfinished, but thats a rare event.)

You would think Darla, the pinhead, seeing my "........." are never in groups of 3 (except by accident) would know they weren't ellipses in the first place....
and now my fingers need a rest.



Show me, if you can, in any of my posts in this thread where I used "....." as a mark to indicate an omission of a word or letter....necessary for a complete syntactical construction but not necessary for understanding.
 
Last edited:
There were far more women with far more corroboration with Clinton. I see a difference, but I don't think it is one that dismisses what he did like your "difference" is...

I think the "difference" you see is based on the partisan glasses you wear.

It isn't the amount of women, it isn't who got paid and it damn sure isn't party. The thing I was greatly detressed over the Thomas incident was that this man was going to be on the Supreme Court for life! He would be in a position to vote on issues that greatly affected women's well beings.

Anita Hill was totally credible and Thomas was not.

Clinton was guilty in some cases, I am sure, but two of his accusers now have an Internet business where you can purchase their Clinton sound bytes. Clinton was President for eight years, he is not serving a life's appointment.

There are some things that go beyond "party"

Your not being a woman, it is hard for you to understand that there are still many hurdles for us.
 
Personally I was waiting to see if Cain could flesh out positions. I read the 999 plan, posted my synopsis as to why it would be problematic and would never pass, then waited to see if something stronger would appear.

There was much to like about such an intelligent person who was clearly not one of the DC elites. And there still may be, if he survives this. I've seen people with much worse stuff coming out against them (I posted a couple from before, another notable would be Edward Kennedy) survive. Saying he's down for the count at this point may be very premature.

I'm hoping that he'll withstand this, and come back swinging with some heftier policy than just the 999 plan, as that will never pass and if it does would be disastrous in the long run.

He may be like able but not electable. The man has no idea about foreign policy. I know it is not the key issue on many people's minds, but it is related to our economy.

I see him as just another Sarah Palin, not serious, just out there to promote himself and make some money!
 
If those were the only two women who said that Clinton was "inappropriate" with them, then I would actually agree. I'm not "out to get" anybody here. Just placing a bit of perspective on things. Far more than just Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick (I'm guessing you spelled it correctly, I'm going by memory) came out to accuse Clinton of many various activities. Some of his activities were even consensual..

Here are what the other two women who accused Clinton are doing these days

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,364874,00.html
 
Back
Top