Bye Bye Herman

[Guest]

Herman gone gone gone. Is Newt next??

[Guest]

We hardly knew you....and that is a good thing. :doh:

[Guest]

Now I don't know who to vote for. The mail in ballots are going to be arriving before Christmas I heard on the news the other day.

[Guest]

Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney

[Guest]

Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney Romney

Well Romney appears to be the only one that would seriously attempt to work with the Opposition, and there certainly has to be give and take no matter who is in and what party wins.

[Guest]

mission accomplished by whomever.....and a large sigh of relief was heard at the WH today. Obama's race card has now been re-validated.

btk

[Guest]

Yes, the mission was accomplished - by Hermie Cain himself.

I cannot understand a CEO of a national firm being involved in marital infidelity and then thinking it will be swept under the rug. Obvioulsly, it is a power thing for these guys.

[Guest]

Yes, the mission was accomplished - by Hermie Cain himself.

I cannot understand a CEO of a national firm being involved in marital infidelity and then thinking it will be swept under the rug. Obvioulsly, it is a power thing for these guys.


Who would have thought that a man running for President could attend a church for 20 years that preached hate.....socialize with a killer from the 60"s etc. and have that swept under the rug ?

At least it does appear that our President is a good family man !

[Guest]

No message other than...how did the obvious take so long to happen?

Now maybe we can pick a candidate who has a chance of winning.

His name is NOT Newt.

[Guest]

Except for two comments, this is a very ignorant and childish thread. The hypocrisy is staggering.

[Guest]

Newt is the next one to get the media colonoscopy.

Romney-Rubio 2012

[Guest]

Newt is the next one to get the media colonoscopy.

Romney-Rubio 2012

Newt's had his a long time ago. It's all old news and now some of the old smears have been discredited. Don't count Newt out. Romney is the one who has to scramble now.

[Guest]

...It's all old news and now some of the old smears have been discredited. Don't count Newt out...Aww c'mon, Richie. Gingrich is running as a conservative. Yet his own party threw him out of the Speakership because he shifted so far back to the center-liberal side they found his leadership totally unacceptable. He was the guy who pushed thru the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act that started the demise of our banking and financial system. He's a guy who hasn't thought twice about lining his pockets with over $100 million selling influence on Congress to special interests, sometimes speaking against them at the same time he was pocketing their money. And like Herman Cain, he has the morals of an alley cat.

This is the guy that conservatives want to carry their flag into the 2012 elections? The Christian Conservatives favor him? Women favor him? You must be kidding.

[Guest]

I watched Romney on Fox last night as 3 attorney general including Pam Bondi asked questions.

I fell asleep, only to awake 45 minutes later to the cheering of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

[Guest]

Aww c'mon, Richie. Gingrich is running as a conservative. Yet his own party threw him out of the Speakership because he shifted so far back to the center-liberal side they found his leadership totally unacceptable. He was the guy who pushed thru the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act that started the demise of our banking and financial system. He's a guy who hasn't thought twice about lining his pockets with over $100 million selling influence on Congress to special interests, sometimes speaking against them at the same time he was pocketing their money. And like Herman Cain, he has the morals of an alley cat.

This is the guy that conservatives want to carry their flag into the 2012 elections? The Christian Conservatives favor him? Women favor him? You must be kidding.

And your views represents Gingrich's double digit rise in the primary polls.........how?

I'm not going to comment on your slanted view of Gingrich, but I will say that nobody's going to be perfect. If you're looking for perfection, forget it; I'm not running.

[Guest]

And your views represents Gingrich's double digit rise in the primary polls.........how?

I'm not going to comment on your slanted view of Gingrich, but I will say that nobody's going to be perfect. If you're looking for perfection, forget it; I'm not running.

Too bad your former state's governor didn't have the guts to run for president, which is really funny because he appears to have plenty of guts.

[Guest]

Yeah, it was a very slow television night so I even watched a little bit of the "forum". Pam Blondie definitely relies on her looks which is a good thing because there is not much substance as compared to her fluff.

[Guest]

Too bad your former state's governor didn't have the guts to run for president, which is really funny because he appears to have plenty of guts.

He's got that. We already have enough liberal Republicans running, though. I don't think we need another one.

[Guest]

He's got that. We already have enough liberal Republicans running, though. I don't think we need another one.

If by "liberal republicans" you mean common sense, free-thinking, and fiscally responsible, yeah, we don't need more of those.

[Guest]

Since Herman Cain "suspended" his campaign and didn't end it, does he get secret service protection indefinitly? How long do the US tax payers have to pay to have this two-timing, grifter tailed? His wife probably loves the idea.

[Guest]

If by "liberal republicans" you mean common sense, free-thinking, and fiscally responsible, yeah, we don't need more of those.

Fiscally responsible Liberal...is that sorta like "jumbo shrimp" or "good grief" or "alone together" or "act naturally"? Thanks for the best laugh I have had all weekend!!!

[Guest]

Fiscally responsible Liberal...is that sorta like "jumbo shrimp" or "good grief" or "alone together" or "act naturally"? Thanks for the best laugh I have had all weekend!!!

I think you missed the point, but thanks for playing.

[Guest]

Herman's announcement yesterday was the best cover up by a candidate I've ever seen who obviously got spanked by his wife for hs transgressions.

However the more interesting story is in whom Herman will endorse?????

[Guest]

If by "liberal republicans" you mean common sense, free-thinking, and fiscally responsible, yeah, we don't need more of those.

That's what you get out of the phrase "liberal Republican"? I'm willing to bet you haven't voted for many of them.

[Guest]

Herman's announcement yesterday was the best cover up by a candidate I've ever seen who obviously got spanked by his wife for hs transgressions.

However the more interesting story is in whom Herman will endorse?????

Everybody willing to crucify a man with no proof from anyone. Only the word of women with more than questionable backgrounds and motives.

All you have is lame gossip reporting of a god-forsaken liberal democrat media that doesn't do any in depth reporting when it would benefit a Republican. You might as well be listening to TMZ.

I'm saying it's shameful behavior from mostly thoughtful contributors to this forum.

[Guest]

If by "liberal republicans" you mean common sense, free-thinking, and fiscally responsible, yeah, we don't need more of those.

That's what you get out of the phrase "liberal Republican"? I'm willing to bet you haven't voted for many of them.

If you are confirming that is what you meant by "liberal republicans", then yes, I have voted for many, though don't expect many more to make it to the general elections.

[Guest]

Everybody willing to crucify a man with no proof from anyone. Only the word of women with more than questionable backgrounds and motives.

All you have is lame gossip reporting of a god-forsaken liberal democrat media that doesn't do any in depth reporting when it would benefit a Republican. You might as well be listening to TMZ.

I'm saying it's shameful behavior from mostly thoughtful contributors to this forum.

Interesting admonishment from one who thinks ann coulter is a serious contributor to political discourse.

[Guest]

Ouch!! He got you with that one, Richie.

[Guest]

If you are confirming that is what you meant by "liberal republicans", then yes, I have voted for many, though don't expect many more to make it to the general elections.

Interesting admonishment from one who thinks ann coulter is a serious contributor to political discourse.

Both of these comments are quite foolish on their face alone.

How have I "confirmed" anything? I only used the phrase "liberal republican". The "defining" of the statement is in your mind.

Your defamation of Ann Coulter itself is the spurious act of an biased reader. If you can really read Ms. Coulter and find no truth in what she says, it says more about you than about her.

[Guest]

Both of these comments are quite foolish on their face alone.

How have I "confirmed" anything? I only used the phrase "liberal republican". The "defining" of the statement is in your mind.

Your defamation of Ann Coulter itself is the spurious act of an biased reader. If you can really read Ms. Coulter and find no truth in what she says, it says more about you than about her.

Sorry I don't measure up to your self-imposed standards, along with many others on this board. As for coulter, your comment is foolish in assuming that I find no truth in what she says. I find bits of truth in what she says when I can stomach the venom. What I would like it to say about me is that I find her vulgar and disgusting and would prefer people who can comment without being strident.

[Guest]

Sorry I don't measure up to your self-imposed standards, along with many others on this board. As for coulter, your comment is foolish in assuming that I find no truth in what she says. I find bits of truth in what she says when I can stomach the venom. What I would like it to say about me is that I find her vulgar and disgusting and would prefer people who can comment without being strident.

I'm having trouble following your logic. Your response to my admonishment of people who are being sucked into the liberal media's baseless crucifying of Mr. Cain without any real proof, was to admonish me for my previous comments quoting Ms. Coulter, who you imply you don't find a serious source.

NOW, you say that although you find truth in her columns, you don't like her tone. So, how is that anything like the media destruction of Mr. Cain without real evidence of any truth to what these women say?

I think you're a bit confused. At least, I am.

[Guest]

Ouch!! He got you with that one, Richie.

:ohdear: You know better than that.

[Guest]

Everybody willing to crucify a man with no proof from anyone. Only the word of women with more than questionable backgrounds and motives.

All you have is lame gossip reporting of a god-forsaken liberal democrat media that doesn't do any in depth reporting when it would benefit a Republican. You might as well be listening to TMZ.

I'm saying it's shameful behavior from mostly thoughtful contributors to this forum.

The fact that he quit was an admission of guilt. You can't blame the victims when there were too many to count. Herman knew there was lots more coming out.

The "god-forsaken liberal democrat media" that you mention has a lot more republicans on than Fox has democrats. Google Fox Viewers Misinformed to see the results of a study that says Fox viewers are not very bright (to put it kindly).

[Guest]

http://www.alternet.org/story/149193/study_confirms_that_fox_news_makes_you_stupid/

[Guest]

The fact that he quit was an admission of guilt. You can't blame the victims when there were too many to count. Herman knew there was lots more coming out.

The "god-forsaken liberal democrat media" that you mention has a lot more republicans on than Fox has democrats. Google Fox Viewers Misinformed to see the results of a study that says Fox viewers are not very bright (to put it kindly).

Political campaigns are run on money and support and these were waning. The campaign was in trouble even before these spurious allegations.

The rest of your comments are too ridiculous to address.

[Guest]

http://www.alternet.org/story/149193/study_confirms_that_fox_news_makes_you_stupid/

Yeah, right!! This survey is as idiotic as any I've ever seen, and I fail to see what it has to do with this thread. The liberal's mind is very convoluted if this forum is any evidence.

[Guest]

Herman Cain's implosion was a case of he said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said.

[Guest]

Herman Cain's implosion was a case of he said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said.

Not quite true. There were only 2 women who say anything. Another was given permission to say and didn't, so she is to be ignored on the face of it.

The other two women have backgrounds of other baseless charges and gold digging, and no evidence. No text's, no phone messages, no semen stained dress, no state troopers bringing her to his room; nothing.

You only believe it because of who he is, or was. A threat to "the one".

[Guest]

Everybody willing to crucify a man with no proof from anyone. Only the word of women with more than questionable backgrounds and motives.

All you have is lame gossip reporting of a god-forsaken liberal democrat media that doesn't do any in depth reporting when it would benefit a Republican. You might as well be listening to TMZ.

I'm saying it's shameful behavior from mostly thoughtful contributors to this forum.

Right out of the right-wing playbook richie, I would expect more from you. Blame the alleged victims and then make the media the strawman, then you can explain away any transgression. According to many the source of many of the allegations against cain was that infamous liberal media mogul, rick perry. Shameful behavior from a mostly thoughtful contributor to this forum.

[Guest]

You only believe it because of who he is, or was. A threat to "the one".

The thing that is apparent to some of us is that cain was NO threat to Obama, so good riddance.

[Guest]

The "god-forsaken liberal democrat media" that you mention has a lot more republicans on than Fox has democrats. Google Fox Viewers Misinformed to see the results of a study that says Fox viewers are not very bright (to put it kindly).

I guess it all depends on who you listen to on Fox. I think your "not very bright" comment shows little class. Nowhere in any of the articles that I read did they say that.
They said misinformed.
I did google what you said and most if not all where "pile on" left wing sites that were all too happy to get a study like this but wait......

So we have three Pew studies that superficially rank Fox viewers low on the well-informed list, but in several of the surveys, Fox isn’t the lowest, and other general-interest media outlets -- such as network news shows, network morning shows and even the other cable news networks -- often score similarly low. Meanwhile, particular Fox shows -- such as The O’Reilly Factor and Sean Hannity’s show -- actually score consistently well, occasionally even outpacing Stewart’s own audience.

Meanwhile, the other set of knowledge surveys, from worldpublicopinion.org, offer mixed support for Stewart. The 2003 survey strikes us as pretty solid, but the 2010 survey has been critiqued for its methodology.

The way Stewart phrased the comment, it’s not enough to show a sliver of evidence that Fox News’ audience is ill-informed. The evidence needs to support the view that the data shows they are "consistently" misinformed -- a term he used not once but three times. It’s simply not true that "every poll" shows that result. So we rate his claim False.

Not so black and white as you would like to believe.

[Guest]

Anyone who watches fox news, to the exclusion of any other news outlets has to be misinformed. fox news is pretty much a propoganda organization for the right wing and therefore the information, and especially the opinions presented as fact, are slanted and therefore tainted. Some of the shows can offer a perspective that is valuable if one also consumes other points of view as well, but the far right has convinced their minions that anything other than the right wing viewpoint is the liberal media attempting to promote their socialist agenda. While the networks and cnn may occaisionally slant to the left, for the most part they are made up of journalists who try to get the story and let the chips fall where they may. msnbc is similarly tainted to the left wing perspective.

[Guest]

OK, I can accept that to a certain degree but you said "not very bright" and that in itself was misinformation and not helpful to any discussion.
It was added to incite and to dig at people you don't agree with.
I watch Fox and other news networks like CNN and sometimes MSNBC plus local major networks and I don't consider myself "not very bright"
Just because someone watches Fox does not make them dumb!

[Guest]

OK, I can accept that to a certain degree but you said "not very bright" and that in itself was misinformation and not helpful to any discussion.
It was added to incite and to dig at people you don't agree with.
I watch Fox and other news networks like CNN and sometimes MSNBC plus local major networks and I don't consider myself "not very bright"
Just because someone watches Fox does not make them dumb!

I just reread my post and I don't find, nor have I ever stated, "not very bright" to refer to anyone watching these shows. I agree that just because someone watches fox does not make them dumb.

[Guest]

Quote:
The "god-forsaken liberal democrat media" that you mention has a lot more republicans on than Fox has democrats. Google Fox Viewers Misinformed to see the results of a study that says Fox viewers are not very bright (to put it kindly).
OK maybe I am misreading your post but none of the articles stated "not very bright".
I was reading your post as you interpreting what the articles meant was not very bright.
If that is not what you meant then I apologize for inferring that.

[Guest]

The fact that he quit was an admission of guilt. You can't blame the victims when there were too many to count. Herman knew there was lots more coming out.

The "god-forsaken liberal democrat media" that you mention has a lot more republicans on than Fox has democrats. Google Fox Viewers Misinformed to see the results of a study that says Fox viewers are not very bright (to put it kindly).

OK maybe I am misreading your post but none of the articles stated "not very bright".
I was reading your post as you interpreting what the articles meant was not very bright.
If that is not what you meant then I apologize for inferring that.

The quote at the top was not from me, but from janmcn.

[Guest]

Oh my God. My age is starting to show itself. I got mixed up on my own post.
I stand corrected, sorry.

So all I said to janmcn

I hope that does not show I am not very bright!!!

Please accept my apology. I will try to pay more attention from now on.

[Guest]

Oh my God. My age is starting to show itself. I got mixed up on my own post.
I stand corrected, sorry.

So all I said to janmcn

I hope that does not show I am not very bright!!!

Please accept my apology. I will try to pay more attention from now on.

No problem, I think you are quite bright actually.

[Guest]

And your views represents Gingrich's double digit rise in the primary polls.........how?

I'm not going to comment on your slanted view of Gingrich, but I will say that nobody's going to be perfect. If you're looking for perfection, forget it; I'm not running.It's not likely that I'll change my view of Gingrich anytime soon.

Having said that, if he's the GOP nominee, I'll vote for him. My thought process will likely be very much the same as I had for the 2008 election. I voted for Obama as the "lesser of two evils". Did I think he really represented "hope and change"? No. But after McCain sold out to the far right and his handlers, and even though he was a multiple incident cancer survivor picked an unqualified person as his VP running mate, he lost me. My thought at the time--and I said it here several times--was if Obama doesn't work out, I simply won't vote for him again.

The President isn't as bad as many here would have him, but still not a good enough leader for a country that desperately needs leadership. He's been hampered by a dysfunctional Congress, but I can't write off all that has been done or not done to that excuse. So I'll be voting for his opponent. And again I'll say--if that person (Mitt or Newt) is elected and doesn't work out, I'll be voting for someone else in 2016.

[Guest]

It's not likely that I'll change my view of Gingrich anytime soon.

Having said that, if he's the GOP nominee, I'll vote for him. My thought process will likely be very much the same as I had for the 2008 election. I voted for Obama as the "lesser of two evils". Did I think he really represented "hope and change"? No. But after McCain sold out to the far right and his handlers, and even though he was a multiple incident cancer survivor picked an unqualified person as his VP running mate, he lost me. My thought at the time--and I said it here several times--was if Obama doesn't work out, I simply won't vote for him again.

The President isn't as bad as many here would have him, but still not a good enough leader for a country that desperately needs leadership. He's been hampered by a dysfunctional Congress, but I can't write off all that has been done or not done to that excuse. So I'll be voting for his opponent. And again I'll say--if that person (Mitt or Newt) is elected and doesn't work out, I'll be voting for someone else in 2016.

Very rational, and I agree with virtually everything you say. I am in hopes that making a choice between Obama and Gingrich is not one I am presented with.

[Guest]

Right out of the right-wing playbook richie, I would expect more from you. Blame the alleged victims and then make the media the strawman, then you can explain away any transgression. According to many the source of many of the allegations against cain was that infamous liberal media mogul, rick perry. Shameful behavior from a mostly thoughtful contributor to this forum.

Bull dingies!! Refute one thing I said. I double dog dare ya!! Women don't lie? How much compensation and trips and possible book deals are these women being promised? Do you know?

There's no evidence; none, nada, zippo. I reject your argument because you have no substantiation, and you can take your silly comments as to my behavior and you know what to do with them.

[Guest]

The thing that is apparent to some of us is that cain was NO threat to Obama, so good riddance.

Obviously you're wrong or the media wouldn't have lynched this candidate with no hard evidence of any sort.

[Guest]

Losing your edge Richie? :laugh:

[Guest]

Losing your edge Richie? :laugh:

???????; sometimes you just have to backhand.

[Guest]

Not quite true. There were only 2 women who say anything. Another was given permission to say and didn't, so she is to be ignored on the face of it.

The other two women have backgrounds of other baseless charges and gold digging, and no evidence. No text's, no phone messages, no semen stained dress, no state troopers bringing her to his room; nothing.

You only believe it because of who he is, or was. A threat to "the one".

If Herman Cain had been the nominee, President Obama would be the luckiest man on earth. Almost as lucky as he was when Alan Keyes ran against him for US Senator from IL.

Where is Ann Coulter now saying "our black is better than their black"?

[Guest]

If Herman Cain had been the nominee, President Obama would be the luckiest man on earth. Almost as lucky as he was when Alan Keyes ran against him for US Senator from IL.

Where is Ann Coulter now saying "our black is better than their black"?

I think she would still be saying that. Of course to understand that you really should read her column. Just reading headlines doesn't tell you much.

Her latest column on the Cain lynching is even more educational. Of course, it would put to a question all your preconceived notions, so maybe it would upset you if you actually read it.

http://www.anncoulter.com/

[Guest]

???????; sometimes you just have to backhand.

OOOOOH, I've been backhanded by richie. Must have hit a nerve.

[Guest]

OOOOOH, I've been backhanded by richie. Must have hit a nerve.

Good; you're paying attention. Now if you read back you'll see that all your previous Cain comments were purely emotional and not evidential. and then that your assessment of my comments were gratuitous and without substance.

I realize of course that you won't see this, but it's not ultimately important that you do.

[Guest]

Bull dingies!! Refute one thing I said. I double dog dare ya!! Women don't lie? How much compensation and trips and possible book deals are these women being promised? Do you know?

There's no evidence; none, nada, zippo. I reject your argument because you have no substantiation, and you can take your silly comments as to my behavior and you know what to do with them.

Bull dingies- really? chilout Where did I say women don't lie? You ask one good question, how much compensation and trips and possible book deals ARE these women being promised richie? I reject your argument because you have no substantiation, and you can take your silly comments and you know what to do with them.

[Guest]

Cain was in fact a threat to Obama's ability to be the sole black candidate and carrying the majority of the black vote. Regardless the degree of threat or not, Cain would have pulled black votes away from Obama.

Cain would have completely negated Obama and his staff to use the race card for select issues.

To label Cain as a non threat is not at all accurate. A testimony to his threat was the expedient method in which all Cain's accusers, have hidden away satisfied with life until now.

Obama and the party have only one real reaction to Cains departure from the race (pun intended)........whew!!!! Thank GOD or whoever.

btk

[Guest]

Good; you're paying attention. Now if you read back you'll see that all your previous Cain comments were purely emotional and not evidential. and then that your assessment of my comments were gratuitous and without substance.

I realize of course that you won't see this, but it's not ultimately important that you do.

Your self-righteous indignation is embarassing richie. I never said anything inflammatory about cain, other than my opinion that he was not a viable candidate. You got bent out of shape only because I challenged your self-aggrandized perception of your importance in chastising others on the board.

[Guest]

I think it's interesting that Gloria Allred was not there at Ginger White's side, salivating for camera time and money from Ginger, too.

Certainly a top-notch lawyer like Allred could uncover things like hotel, airplane and cell-phone records that show they were together for 13 years.....like the National Enquirer photos of John Edwards entering and leaving the hotel, pregnant Rielle, and later evidence of a fake plot to get Andrew Young to say he was the father of the baby, until it came time for DNA testing....

"Young said Edwards, a former North Carolina senator and Democratic presidential contender in 2008, asked him to steal one of his daughter's soiled diapers as part of a DNA strategy.

Tune in to ABC News' "20/20" and "Nightline" Friday, Jan. 29 to see Andrew Young's exclusive groundbreaking interview. Then tune in to "Good Morning America" on the following Monday, Feb. 1, when Young will appear for his first live interview.

"Get a doctor to fake the DNA results," Young said Edwards told him. "And he asked me ... to steal a diaper from the baby so he could secretly do a DNA test to find out if this [was] indeed his child."

Young said he ignored the request.

Edwards released a statement today finally admitting that he is the father of Hunter's daughter, Frances Quinn..."
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Politics/andrew-young-john-edwards-orchestrated-paternity-cover/story?id=9625466#.TtzmFWBHBMo

Although it's possible Cain did the things the women accused him of, there really isn't much proof of the lengthy 13-year affair with White at this point. The double standard could not be more blatant:

"Bill Clinton's accusers had gifts, taped phone conversations with him and a semen-stained dress.

Gennifer Flowers produced taped telephone calls with Clinton totaling thousands of words between them, with him counseling her on how to deny their affair: "If they ever hit you with it, just say no, and go on. There's nothing they can do ... But when they -- if somebody contacts you, I need to know ... All you got to do is deny it."

Paula Jones had multiple same-day witnesses -- including the state troopers who worked for Clinton and had already told the press about a "Paula" they brought to Clinton's hotel room. And that was for a single incident.

Monica Lewinsky had lots of gifts from Clinton, including a hat pin, two brooches, a marble bear figurine, a T-shirt from Martha's Vineyard and Walt Whitman's "Leaves of Grass," all of which she mysteriously placed with Clinton's secretary, Betty Currie, during the investigation, as well as a semen-stained dress, which Monica kept.

Ginger White claims she had a 13-year affair with Cain -- and all she has are two books with inscriptions that could have been written to an auto mechanic who waited in line at a Cain book signing. Even her business partner during the alleged affair says White never mentioned Cain's name..."
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-11-30.html

Time will tell....but in the meantime, I think it's scary how the concepts of libel and slander mean nothing to so many on the left.

[Guest]

The serial adultery wing of the GOP holds together. Herman Cain will endorse Newt Gingrich today.

[Guest]

Your self-righteous indignation is embarassing richie. I never said anything inflammatory about cain, other than my opinion that he was not a viable candidate. You got bent out of shape only because I challenged your self-aggrandized perception of your importance in chastising others on the board.

All your comments indicated your support and acceptance of the witch hunt and that cannot be disputed. Your analysis of me is entertaining and imaginative. I'll criticize anyone who interprets gossip as fact. Here on this forum or right to your face; including the childish post right above this one.

[Guest]

Cain was in fact a threat to Obama's ability to be the sole black candidate and carrying the majority of the black vote. Regardless the degree of threat or not, Cain would have pulled black votes away from Obama.

Cain would have completely negated Obama and his staff to use the race card for select issues.

To label Cain as a non threat is not at all accurate. A testimony to his threat was the expedient method in which all Cain's accusers, have hidden away satisfied with life until now.

Obama and the party have only one real reaction to Cains departure from the race (pun intended)........whew!!!! Thank GOD or whoever.

btk

I would have loved to see a debate between Cain and Obama. Repeated "999 I'm doing fine" versus an intelligent, well spoken individual. No contest.....Cain Train derailed. :sad:

[Guest]

beauty is obviously in the eye of the beholders....and wishful thinkers!!

You know what they say about opinions...eh?

btk

[Guest]

The PG was NEVER a serious contender for the nomination.

Expect to see Herb in TV very soon selling his book, which was always his motive.

PT Barnum was right.

[Guest]

our current POTUS bears out Barnum's cliche'.

btk

[Guest]

Osama Bin Laden would 'prolly disagree - you know, the guy Junior couldn't seem to find for 7 years....

[Guest]

IMHO Cain clearly was not prepared to run because if he had then the sexual harassment and 13 year affair would have been effectively addressed. Cain is a good motivational speaker and possess good corporate leadership skills but is that enough to deal with the partisan politics in Washington? His 9-9-9 plan was catchy but would have never ben implemented. However it did get other candidates to move in that direction to address our messed up tax system. Debating whether the allegations were true or untrue is a moot point.

As to the race isue I venture a guess and say I beleieve the country is pretty much over that issue because they discovered it only came back to bite them. I believe voters are focused more on issues and candidates detailed plans on solving this country's issues

[Guest]

IMHO Cain clearly was not prepared to run because if he had then the sexual harassment and 13 year affair would have been effectively addressed. Cain is a good motivational speaker and possess good corporate leadership skills but is that enough to deal with the partisan politics in Washington? His 9-9-9 plan was catchy but would have never ben implemented. However it did get other candidates to move in that direction to address our messed up tax system. Debating whether the allegations were true or untrue is a moot point.

As to the race isue I venture a guess and say I beleieve the country is pretty much over that issue because they discovered it only came back to bite them. I believe voters are focused more on issues and candidates detailed plans on solving this country's issues

Well stated rubicon! You make your case without trying to insult or belittle other posters, and make it well.

[Guest]

Sorry I don't measure up to your self-imposed standards, along with many others on this board. As for coulter, your comment is foolish in assuming that I find no truth in what she says. I find bits of truth in what she says when I can stomach the venom. What I would like it to say about me is that I find her vulgar and disgusting and would prefer people who can comment without being strident.

I'm on board with this. Ann has lots to say that I agree with, but the way she says it drives people crazy on both sides, for and against her. Again, I like what her message is ., but she delivers the message like a drunk X girlfriend on a rant.

[Guest]

It's not likely that I'll change my view of Gingrich anytime soon.

Having said that, if he's the GOP nominee, I'll vote for him. My thought process will likely be very much the same as I had for the 2008 election. I voted for Obama as the "lesser of two evils". Did I think he really represented "hope and change"? No. But after McCain sold out to the far right and his handlers, and even though he was a multiple incident cancer survivor picked an unqualified person as his VP running mate, he lost me. My thought at the time--and I said it here several times--was if Obama doesn't work out, I simply won't vote for him again.

The President isn't as bad as many here would have him, but still not a good enough leader for a country that desperately needs leadership. He's been hampered by a dysfunctional Congress, but I can't write off all that has been done or not done to that excuse. So I'll be voting for his opponent. And again I'll say--if that person (Mitt or Newt) is elected and doesn't work out, I'll be voting for someone else in 2016.

Ditto: I voted for Obama and that was the first time in my life that I voted for a Democrat. I was set to vote for McCain until I heard Palin talk and jumped over the fence. Now, if Romney and Palin are on the ticket, I will hold my nose and vote for Romney or Newt Palin would work. I know, I AM WISHY WASHY, but remember, I am in a very large group of folks that will vote the way I do.

[Guest]

Ditto: I voted for Obama and that was the first time in my life that I voted for a Democrat. I was set to vote for McCain until I heard Palin talk and jumped over the fence. Now, if Romney and Palin are on the ticket, I will hold my nose and vote for Romney or Newt Palin would work. I know, I AM WISHY WASHY, but remember, I am in a very large group of folks that will vote the way I do.

Voting on perceived merit rather than following a party line like a sheep to slaughter is not wishy washy but intelligent independent thinking. As you may imagine, I too am in that group. :)

[Guest]

Voting on perceived merit rather than following a party line like a sheep to slaughter is not wishy washy but intelligent independent thinking. As you may imagine, I too am in that group. :)

I agree and would like to add "voting on perceived motives". So often, people do not count the candidates' motives into the equation.

Is the candidate looking only for personal and then party power?

Or are they secure enough in themselves and their financial position that they are not on the track of "He can't get enough" (power and money).

A true leader possesses selflessness at the top of the list of character traits.

And I think it is selfish and LAZY to vote straight party line, as so many do on both sides.

[Guest]

I think the Party has to be taken into account when voting. All you have to do is look at the nearly locked in step party line voting in the Houses, of late. Once people are elected and begin to serve they soon find out who's in charge and what they have to do to rise in the ranks and further their careers and their fortunes.

Saying that, I haven't seen a name in the Democrat column, not counting very local contests, that I would have pulled the lever for in many a year.

Maybe when Reid and Pelosi are history, and if then the Democrat Party moves away from it radical leanings I will reconsider, but not until then.

[Guest]

I think the Party has to be taken into account when voting. All you have to do is look at the nearly locked in step party line voting in the Houses, of late. Once people are elected and begin to serve they soon find out who's in charge and what they have to do to rise in the ranks and further their careers and their fortunes.

Saying that, I haven't seen a name in the Democrat column, not counting very local contests, that I would have pulled the lever for in many a year.

Maybe when Reid and Pelosi are history, and if then the Democrat Party moves away from it radical leanings I will reconsider, but not until then.

I would agree that party must be taken into account when voting, however part of the problem with the "nearly locked in step party line voting" is that they know, in order to be reelected, that they must pander to the extremes of their party because they are the ones who vote in the primaries to a large extent. If more people thought, and voted, independently, especially in the primaries we might be able to break the hold of the Grover Norquist's on the right and the Pelosi's on the left.

[Guest]

I would agree that party must be taken into account when voting, however part of the problem with the "nearly locked in step party line voting" is that they know, in order to be reelected, that they must pander to the extremes of their party because they are the ones who vote in the primaries to a large extent. If more people thought, and voted, independently, especially in the primaries we might be able to break the hold of the Grover Norquist's on the right and the Pelosi's on the left.

I agree, to a point, but those "independent" candidates mostly just fall in line with the leaders of the party. We've seen it over and over.

Really the only recent examples of challenges to the status quo has been the Tea Party candidates who've won election. Maybe not all of them, but enough to shake the foundations of the Republican establishment.

[Guest]

I agree, to a point, but those "independent" candidates mostly just fall in line with the leaders of the party. We've seen it over and over.

Really the only recent examples of challenges to the status quo has been the Tea Party candidates who've won election. Maybe not all of them, but enough to shake the foundations of the Republican establishment.

When those tea party candidates begin to refuse to sign norquist's no tax pledge and refuse to attend his breakfasts, I will beleive they might be able to do some reforming.

[Guest]

I agree, to a point, but those "independent" candidates mostly just fall in line with the leaders of the party. We've seen it over and over.

Really the only recent examples of challenges to the status quo has been the Tea Party candidates who've won election. Maybe not all of them, but enough to shake the foundations of the Republican establishment.

You got to be kidding. Tea Party candidates cost the Republicans control of the senate in 2010: Christine O'Donnell in DE, Sharon Angle in NV, Buck in CO, one in WV (name escapes me), and they're going to cost the Republicans the White House in 2012. And don't forget that loser Joe Miller in Alaska who lost to a write-in candidate.

[Guest]

I would agree that party must be taken into account when voting, however part of the problem with the "nearly locked in step party line voting" is that they know, in order to be reelected, that they must pander to the extremes of their party because they are the ones who vote in the primaries to a large extent. If more people thought, and voted, independently, especially in the primaries we might be able to break the hold of the Grover Norquist's on the right and the Pelosi's on the left.

eweissenbach: It may be simplistic but I believe voters fall in line with that oft referrd to bell curve. However there are periods wherein hard shifts to one side or another are made because circumstances require it. We have had a very liberal president and congress that unfortunately has rapidly heading into european socialism. We will ned a hard shift to the right to get us back on track. I say that because not everything a president proposes gets voted in.

My wish list includes a very strong deense and foreign policy. We need to retake our place at the head of the global table.

I believe that the Departments of energy and Education have to be reduced and redefined becuase they are ineffective and misguided. I believe the EPA has to have it swings clipped because its green policies are creating a serious danger of power shortages across this country.

I do not believe a tax incease will help us as it is like going to an ATM to meet your home budget shortages. Congress will spend tax increases at an alarming rate. We can however invest in revenue neutral solution.

Spending needs to be cur but again there are a number of ways to accomplish that without hurting people. For instance welfare programs shoud be turned over to the individual states because they will be able to manage them better. the federal government is just too big.

I am certain there are members here who have better solutions . Its now solutions were short on its poltical people will the intestinal fortittude and desire to push through these solutions.

[Guest]

eweissenbach: It may be simplistic but I believe voters fall in line with that oft referrd to bell curve. However there are periods wherein hard shifts to one side or another are made because circumstances require it. We have had a very liberal president and congress that unfortunately has rapidly heading into european socialism. We will ned a hard shift to the right to get us back on track. I say that because not everything a president proposes gets voted in.

My wish list includes a very strong deense and foreign policy. We need to retake our place at the head of the global table.

I believe that the Departments of energy and Education have to be reduced and redefined becuase they are ineffective and misguided. I believe the EPA has to have it swings clipped because its green policies are creating a serious danger of power shortages across this country.

I do not believe a tax incease will help us as it is like going to an ATM to meet your home budget shortages. Congress will spend tax increases at an alarming rate. We can however invest in revenue neutral solution.

Spending needs to be cur but again there are a number of ways to accomplish that without hurting people. For instance welfare programs shoud be turned over to the individual states because they will be able to manage them better. the federal government is just too big.

I am certain there are members here who have better solutions . Its now solutions were short on its poltical people will the intestinal fortittude and desire to push through these solutions.

Nothing wrong with what you say, except the part about no tax increase, in my opinion. Tax rates on people with taxable income above $250,000 need to be raised. They are at historic lows and maybe even more importantly tax credit and deduction loopholes need to be closed, as the wealthy are currently the biggest benefactors of the American Taxpayer. People scream about social programs, but the wealthy, who don't need any help, get far more taxpayer supported benefits than anyone else. Social Security can also be fixed by increasing the income limits subject to SStax. A self-employed person making up to $106k will be taxed (ss tax) 12.4% in 2012 - A self-employed person making $1million will be taxed at about a 1.2% rate. Ask yourself, which of these people could stand to help us keep social security solvent? Before I get branded with the dreaded class warfare label, let me say that for the last 25 years of my working life I made more than the SS tax limit, and would not have blinked an eye had that been raised - Also, two of my three children currently make more than $250k and they can afford to pay more. They own a business and employ over 100 people, and none of them have been hired or fired because of my kid's personal income tax, they hire or fire them on merit, and for what they add to the company's bottom line. None of this is possible as long as the republicans continue to do grover norquist's (as a front to who knows who - koch brothers maybe?)bidding

[Guest]

Tax rates on people with taxable income above $250,000 need to be raised. They are at historic lows and maybe even more importantly tax credit and deduction loopholes need to be closed, as the wealthy are currently the biggest benefactors of the American Taxpayer.

This is where I think the problem begins for me. My accountant says that because of the lose of income for going over $250,000 per year because of the higher taxes I need to earn no more than I do now.
That means do not expand my business because it it only more work for less money.
So if you think it does not hurt job creation, I am telling you I will not be creating any more jobs because the government gets all the money for that extra work I did and I get nothing.

To some that kind of income seems like a lot but when you factor in all the cost of living in this time it ain't!

This sounds like tax them but not me but I think you need to earn much more than $250,000 for it not to hurt. The uber rich can absorb it much better than some one in my situation.

Just say'in

[Guest]

This is where I think the problem begins for me. My accountant says that because of the lose of income for going over $250,000 per year because of the higher taxes I need to earn no more than I do now.
That means do not expand my business because it it only more work for less money.
So if you think it does not hurt job creation, I am telling you I will not be creating any more jobs because the government gets all the money for that extra work I did and I get nothing.

To some that kind of income seems like a lot but when you factor in all the cost of living in this time it ain't!

This sounds like tax them but not me but I think you need to earn much more than $250,000 for it not to hurt. The uber rich can absorb it much better than some one in my situation.

Just say'in

No offense but your accountant is wrong, unless he just wants you to shift the money into next year, which really doesn't cost you in the long run. You will not be taxed at 100% so any money you make above any marginal tax breakpoint, will mean more money in your pocket. If keeping more than 60% of every dollar you make above that point is not attractive to you, then you are in an enviable position indeed. Also if you make more than $250,000 in TAXIBLE INCOME and you are having a hard time making ends meet, you need a new accountant and a little lifestyle adjustment. I don't mean to be strident, but you and me and my kids are not hurting, the country and many people in it are. I just picked the $250k mark from discussions during the last campaign - maybe it should be higher, but it should be somewhere. I am still convinced that the far right has pushed the argument that raising taxes on the wealthy will cost jobs so they can get buy-in from the vast majority of people who don't fall into that category. It is simply not a viable argument - why did we have almost full employment during the Truman and Eisenhower administrations when the highest marginal tax rates were double what they are today?

[Guest]

Also if you make more than $250,000 in TAXIBLE INCOME and you are having a hard time making ends meet, you need a new accountant and a little lifestyle adjustment.
This is not something you would know but I have to keep up a second household for my mother-in-law so that is a bunch so lifestyle is not above the normal person I think.
I think that 40% of my income is a bunch, especially if you do not agree with how it is being used.


why did we have almost full employment during the Truman and Eisenhower administrations when the highest marginal tax rates were double what they are today?
I would guess because we MADE THINGS! We now just buy things. It was a totally different economy and we use to make things and sell them, called jobs, gas was 19 cents and bread was 10 cents. That would be my guess.

By the way my CPA is my stepmother and is also a Obama lover so why would SHE say that. She is quite good at what she does and she lives in the Villages along with my democrat to the bone father, Love them both.
When it comes to taxes she has it covered!
The way I see it is the extra money my company would make with the lower tax is about a entry level job that I could create!!

[Guest]

Sorry, didn't mean to insult your step-mother. I still maintain that 60% of the gross is worth some effort.

[Guest]

I did not take it like that. I understand what you meant.
If I am to be honest it is really that I can pay more I just don't want to.
If the economy was stronger and had anything that looked like a future I would be much softer on this point.

[Guest]

I did not take it like that. I understand what you meant.
If I am to be honest it is really that I can pay more I just don't want to.
If the economy was stronger and had anything that looked like a future I would be much softer on this point.

We don't agree on everything but you're a class act.

[Guest]

Thank you sir.