Cain: Wife didn't know about friendship, ‘financial assistance' to Ginger White | New Hampshire NEWS0605 (http://www.unionleader.com/article/20111201/NEWS0605/111209989)

He's all done. See ya liar liar pants on fire

is his middle name WEINER? It's starting to look more and more like that.......

Maybe he'll bid a fondadoooooo tooooooo :hee:

Middle name? Divorced...

haha new last name MUD

Middle name? Divorced...

AP is calling it all but over.

I bet he would have made a good president. He was a good liar.

he was a power hungry NUTjob from the GET GO

another one bites the dust.

It's Newt or Mitt and if it ain't Newt, I think it's 4 more years with the current admin.

Inside Obama's re-election math - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/01/election/2012/obamas-re-election-math/index.html?iref=allsearch)


looks that way to me

newt has a distinct charm and a twinkle in his eye that rivals santa Claus
...and the WIT is off the scale...

his story telling ability is far above prez obama
and his ability to capture an Audience - breathtaking

Inside Obama's re-election math - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/01/election/2012/obamas-re-election-math/index.html?iref=allsearch)


looks that way to me

Good article. My guess is that 2012 will be decided by Pennslyvania, Ohio, and the ability of the GOP to get MArco Rubio as VP, which gives them FL.

And when Cain drops out, the majority of his support shifts to Newt. Same thing will happen when Perry and Bachman drop out.

Fins to the left... Fins to the right... All these big egos.. they always seem to think they are going to be the ones to beat the machine... he was just another seal swimming with sharks...

That'll be good to see, newt is wicked smaht. should make for good debates.

AP is calling it all but over.

I bet he would have made a good president. He was a good liar.


So was Clinton.

HAHA! Aren't they ALL Jim? :)

So was Clinton.

for the Big Announcement.... counting the minutes

Time for Plan B!

NO WE CAIN'T was the headline on Drudge :D

Herman Cain drops out of presidential race - latimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-cain-announcement-20111203,0,889996.story)

Bu bye

Stay home CAIN.

Still waiting for the race card to get pulled

Still waiting for the race card to get pulled

I'll play it. If Cain was a white liberal, this isn't as big a story. The major networks sat on the John Edwards story for so long, they waited for the National Inquirer to break the news.

There are no lengths that liberals will not go to, in order to destroy women and blacks who have the temerity ro be conservative. They sure as hell did it to Clarence Thomas, they did it to Palin, and they did it to Cain. Let's see what they do to Marco Rubio, should he be the VP pick, and he better be...

I'll play it. If Cain was a white liberal, this isn't as big a story. The major networks sat on the John Edwards story for so long, they waited for the National Inquirer to break the news.
The media sat on the story because there was nobody on record to report about for some time. With Cain they started coming out very quickly, and the fact that the allegations were initially about harassment is much more damning than an affair. Once the Edwards story turned into a cover up the media had no problem finishing him off.

There are no lengths that liberals will not go to, in order to destroy women and blacks who have the temerity ro be conservative. They sure as hell did it to Clarence Thomas, they did it to Palin, and they did it to Cain. Let's see what they do to Marco Rubio, should he be the VP pick, and he better be...

:rotf2: no lengths :rotf2:

You forgot the murder of the unborn, it would really finish the paragraph off...

-spence

The media sat on the story because there was nobody on record to report about for some time. With Cain they started coming out very quickly, and the fact that the allegations were initially about harassment is much more damning than an affair. Once the Edwards story turned into a cover up the media had no problem finishing him off.



:rotf2: no lengths :rotf2:

You forgot the murder of the unborn, it would really finish the paragraph off...

-spence

"The media sat on the story because there was nobody on record to report about for some time."

Spence, the first several reports regarding Cain, were based on anonymous sources. The fact that none would go on the record, didn't stop the media from jumping on the bandwagon. Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

"The media sat on the story because there was nobody on record to report about for some time."

I play that card when it's relevant. Not when it has no bearing.

Spence, I'm STILL waiting for you to explain why it's bad for America when "corporations" buy political influence, but it's OK when public unions do it?

Spence, the first several reports regarding Cain, were based on anonymous sources. The fact that none would go on the record, didn't stop the media from jumping on the bandwagon. Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Or it was because the first two accusers had had a legal settlement that prevented them from going on the record. Settlement, to me, implies that Cain did something inappropriate. you may read it as he just did it to not deal with them. either way, did they think it wouldn't come out that he had had these settlements?


I play that card when it's relevant. Not when it has no bearing. "The media sat on the story because there was nobody on record to report about for some time."

So was Fox News in on the Edwards cover-up then?

Still waiting for the race card to get pulled

It was - first day. Coulter and I believe Rush.

Spence, the first several reports regarding Cain, were based on anonymous sources. The fact that none would go on the record, didn't stop the media from jumping on the bandwagon. Do you ever get tired of being wrong?
As I said, sexual harassment is much more newsworthy than an affair.

You're just going to have to get over the idea that this is all a liberal conspiracy to knock down a brother :)

Spence, I'm STILL waiting for you to explain why it's bad for America when "corporations" buy political influence, but it's OK when public unions do it?
When did I ever make that assertion?

-spence

When did I ever make that assertion?
-spence

B/C you appear to support the liberal, or at least non-R agenda, so you are required to be pro-killing babies and pro-union

Settlement, to me, implies that Cain did something inappropriate. you may read it as he just did it to not deal with them. either way, did they think it wouldn't come out that he had had these settlements?
Good point, the fact of a legal settlement does replace the need for someone to come forward in person.

I don't agree though that the fact there was a settlement implies he did anything inappropriate. A large corporation is always going to have many suits of various credibility. A corporate executive is a prime target and often it's just easier and cheaper to settle.

That being said, the settlements along with what looks to be a long affair does seem to make the overall character story pretty damning.

So was Fox News in on the Edwards cover-up then?

No, Fox having a heavy conservative bias isn't technically part of the media.

-spence

Or it was because the first two accusers had had a legal settlement that prevented them from going on the record. Settlement, to me, implies that Cain did something inappropriate. you may read it as he just did it to not deal with them. either way, did they think it wouldn't come out that he had had these settlements?




So was Fox News in on the Edwards cover-up then?

"So was Fox News in on the Edwards cover-up then?"

Funny you mention that. I watched the O'Reilly factor the night that story broke. O'Reilly mentioned that there was a story swirling around, but that he wasn;t going to mention it, because nothing was confirmed, and he didn't think it was right to speculate. How do you like them apples?

I'd guess there's something to the Cain accusations. I just don't like the obvious hypocrisy (obvious to anyone who sees clearly, that is).

I see.
If O'Reilly says it, it's good journalism, if MSNBC does it, it's a conspiracy.

Anyone who thinks that they are getting news from any cable news shows is fooling themselves. They are getting opinions from the host and their guests. There is zero "news" available these days that is completely non biased.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what was he thinking....

When did I ever make that assertion?

-spence

From the "Occupy" post...

#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^& said this:

"What exactly are they protesting again?"

And here was your reply...

"How corporate influence over our political process is rigging the game in favor of the wealthy."

Spence, do yourself a favor. When dealing with me, assume you're not dealing with a moron, OK?

Now, back to my question. Clearly, you think that when "corporations" make political contributions, it rigs the system in their favor. And I'm sure you're right about that.

Here is my question. Spence, why aren't you JUST AS CONCERNED that when public unions make political capmaign contributions, that they are likewise rigging the system in their favor?

GOOD LUCK.

And Spence, what unions do is worse for everyone else, and here's why. For the most part (there are some exceptions), corporations can buy all the influence they want, but in the end, they can't force me to buy their product. But when public labor unions buy influence, that gets forced on all of us in the form of property taxes, which I have no choice but to pay.

When companies buy influence, it has nowhere near the detrimental impact on folks, as when public labor unions run amuck.

Have fun responding to that.

B/C you appear to support the liberal, or at least non-R agenda, so you are required to be pro-killing babies and pro-union

Rockhound, as you can see from my post above, I didn't "assume" that Spence made that assertion. He explicitly made that assertion, and then when I used it (quite cleverly in my opinion) to back him into an inescapable corner, he denied it.

You see, Rockhound, there is no sane way a person can say it's wrong for corporations to buy influence, but to also support the right for public labor unions to buy influence. That hypocrisy is so obvious, a child can see it. Yet that's precisely waht most liberals do. In this case, Spence decried the unfairness of corporations buying influence. When I asked him why he's OK with labor unions doing the same thing, he denied ever saying it in the first place.

That's the liberal agenda. Impossible to defend from a common sense standpoint, so all Spence can do, is deny saying something that he obviously just said. And here's what I don't get. If his position is SO WEAK that he cannot defend it, if his position is so inane that all he can do is deny what he just said, then why does he believe what he believes?

That's the key question.

You see, Rockhound, there is no sane way a person can say it's wrong for corporations to buy influence, but to also support the right for public labor unions to buy influence. That hypocrisy is so obvious, a child can see it. Yet that's precisely waht most liberals do.

MOST Liberals.
I want money out from both sides.
End the pull from both sides. End the Super PAC's etc... back to a set amount of funding and thats it

You ignored my comment about O'Reilly's I see...

MOST Liberals.
I want money out from both sides.
End the pull from both sides. End the Super PAC's etc... back to a set amount of funding and thats it

You ignored my comment about O'Reilly's I see...

"You ignored my comment about O'Reilly's I see"

Thanks for pointing that out, because your comment was 100% wrong. You shjould have been glad I ignored it. Here is what you said...

"If O'Reilly says it, it's good journalism, if MSNBC does it, it's a conspiracy"

You're comparing what O'Reilly did, with what MSNBC did. But what they did was the OPPOSITE of one another.

O'Reilly refused to comment on the Edwards story when it was just unfounded accusations. MSNBC was quite happy to run stories about Cain before anything was confirmed.

Those 2 approaches are QUITE different, and very few people would say O'Reilly was on the wrong side, but I guess you would?

Good day.

"If O'Reilly says it, it's good journalism, if MSNBC does it, it's a conspiracy"

You're comparing what O'Reilly did, with what MSNBC did. But what they did was the OPPOSITE of one another.

O'Reilly refused to comment on the Edwards story when it was just unfounded accusations. MSNBC was quite happy to run stories about Cain before anything was confirmed.

I was referring to this comment:

If Cain was a white liberal, this isn't as big a story. The major networks sat on the John Edwards story for so long, they waited for the National Inquirer to break the news.

So regarding the EDWARDS case O'Reilly was being a good journalist; the 'Major Networks' sat on the story?

As far as CAIN goes, I said it above. There were DOCUMENTED settlements regarding sexual harassment. This makes it fair game. If Cain really thought those settlements would not come out during a campaign for the white house then he is a moron, as are his political aides/advisers.

So Fox news and or O'Reilly specifically mentioned nothing about the Cain story at all, because no one came out in person and it wasn't 'confirmed'?

If not, then who is sitting on stories then to further a political agenda?

I was referring to this comment:



So regarding the EDWARDS case O'Reilly was being a good journalist; the 'Major Networks' sat on the story b/c the liberals want to keep a woman/minority republican down?

As far as CAIN goes, I said it above. There were DOCUMENTED settlements regarding sexual harassment. This makes it fair game. If Cain really thought those settlements would not come out during a campaign for the white house then he is a moron, as are his political aides/advisers.

So Fox news and or O'Reilly specifically mentioned nothing about the Cain story at all, because no one came out in person and it wasn't 'confirmed'?

If not, then who is sitting on stories then to further a political agenda?

"the 'Major Networks' sat on the story b/c the liberals want to keep a woman/minority republican down? "

I don't know what you're saying. In the Edwards case, the major networks kept it quiet as long as they could, until they were all embarassed by the National Enquirer, of all things. In the Cain situation, as soon as the first accusation was made, the networks couldn't get it out fast enough.

"There were DOCUMENTED settlements regarding sexual harassment."

Not until long after the major networks were gleefully reporting the story. For the first several days, the networks ran with a story from POLITICO, which only cited an anonymous source making a vague accusation. But since the acused was a black conservative, that was good enough for them.

I agree with you, talking about the settlement is absolutely fair, and I'll do you one better, the networks have a responsibility to report that.