Texsox Posted November 9, 2011 Author Share Posted November 9, 2011 QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 12:48 PM) Gloria Allred, or however you spell her name. She doesn't work for free, so she got access somehow. And should we believe her MORE because she is poor? And that is a dilema that really has no clear answer. Should she have settled for an "I'm sorry?" Our entire system of civil penalties revolves around a financial penalty. When the people who can afford it the most settle with the people they hurt and who have the least, then it's accuse the accuser time. When the people who can afford it the most settle with false accusers, it is still accuse the accuser time. Tough to know who to believe, but that highlights why Cain would settle. Who's going to believe that po' woman anyway? But I believe there are way more people settling true accusations, knowing they can explain it away with a "it was too expensive to fight" than falsly accused people settling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted November 9, 2011 Author Share Posted November 9, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 12:51 PM) According to Ms. Allred's statement, she has taken this case pro bono. What she gets is career building publicity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 12:31 PM) But you bring up a valid point and the reason that poor people are such perfect targets in our society. They do not have access to great legal counsel *and* people will discredit what they say based on their financial situation. If this was some 5th Avenue, wealthy person making the accusation, we wouldn['t be having this discussion. But since the accuser is of more modest means, she is open to this speculation. Bingo. It's protection of the powerful from the claims of the powerless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 12:48 PM) Gloria Allred, or however you spell her name. She doesn't work for free, so she got access somehow. And should we believe her MORE because she is poor? And I just saw this on a blog, but can't find a direct link, will post here for you all to view. Now if this stuff is true, is it character assassination to point it out as a justification for debating the merits of her claim? Yes, it's a giant ad hominem from the Cain 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. It is irrelevant to whether or not Cain harassed her. This line of argument leads to the conclusion that people who have made past mistakes cannot be victims of abuse by people who are powerful. 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. So she has a history of being a defendant in what appears to be related lawsuits and financial claims against her. This does nothing to address her claims of being abused. It's an attack on her character in order to disparage her claims without actually addressing the claims. Ms. Bialek was also sued in 1999 over a paternity matter according to ABC 7 Chicago (WLS-TV). Source: WLS-TV, November 7, 2011 This is relevant how? 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 This is relevant how? Curiously, if Ms. Bialek had intended to take legal action, the statute of limitations would have passed a decade ago. Why is this "curious?" She clearly does not intent to take legal action. Which brings up the question of why she would make such reprehensible statements now? Because Cain is running for President and a news organization found that Cain's previous employer had to settle two unrelated sexual harassment claims for a significant amount of money. Or maybe it's the racist Perry Democrat Machine trying to keep a businessman out of the White House! 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 These are the only possibly legitimate statements in the whole thing, but even this plays right back into the whole disgusting idea that sexual harassment claims are just ways for dumb, humorless gold-diggers to get money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmmmbeeer Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) It's so refreshing to read this board. I live in GA in the 19th most conservative county in the US (according to Daily Caller). I'm pretty much a centrist but to these people I'm a commie bastard. You would not believe how much Cain is loved and adored here...it's ridiculous. No matter what the idiot says or does, someone is there to defend him. These folks are going to be devastated when Romney takes the nomination. Edited November 9, 2011 by mmmmmbeeer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 QUOTE (mmmmmbeeer @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 02:10 PM) It's so refreshing to read this board. I live in GA in the 19th most conservative county in the US (according to Daily Caller). I'm pretty much a centrist but to these people I'm a commie bastard. You would not believe how much Cain is loved and adored here...it's ridiculous. No matter what the idiot says or does, someone is there to defend him. These folks are going to be devastated when Romney takes the nomination. I don't love Cain, just asking questions. I still think I may vote for Newt, if he actually makes it to the Illinois primary. But there are people like what you describe for most candidates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Well this should win you friends, Herman Cain. http://hermancainpac.com/2011/11/herman-ca...E2%80%99s-ugly/ Herman Cain Accuser Karen Kraushaar works for Obama and she’s ugly Posted on November 8, 2011 by MP Ew, gross! Who the hell does this ugly b1tch think she’s fooling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 There's a GOP debate on CNBC right now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted November 10, 2011 Author Share Posted November 10, 2011 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 07:05 PM) There's a GOP debate on CNBC right now Paid for by the Re-elect Obama campaign Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted November 10, 2011 Author Share Posted November 10, 2011 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 07:05 PM) There's a GOP debate on CNBC right now Paid for by the Re-elect Obama campaign Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 08:34 PM) Paid for by the Re-elect Obama campaign uh ok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 09:34 PM) Paid for by the Re-elect Obama campaign You stole that from a political cartoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 So in tonight's campaign, Rick Perry says he wants to eliminate three departments from the federal government. Then he can only name two of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MexSoxFan#1 Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 10:48 PM) So in tonight's campaign, Rick Perry says he wants to eliminate three departments from the federal government. Then he can only name two of them. Yeah, it was really bad...Romney will win the nomination by default unless Cain can pull a Clinton (I doubt it), Perry pretty much killed his chances tonight. Everybody has had a brainfart like that but just wait til the late night talk show hosts and SNL are done with Perry, they're gonna be ruthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 LOL @ Rick Perry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 03:48 PM) So in tonight's campaign, Rick Perry says he wants to eliminate three departments from the federal government. Then he can only name two of them. Don't think I've seen a candidate who has crashed and burned in a period of 2 months. more in my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted November 10, 2011 Author Share Posted November 10, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 09:06 PM) You stole that from a political cartoon. Rick Perry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 QUOTE (DBAHO @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 03:35 AM) Don't think I've seen a candidate who has crashed and burned in a period of 2 months. more in my life. “I’m glad I have my boots on because I sure stepped in it tonight.” — Rick Perry in spin room Maybe he should have skipped the remaining debates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Things you should not do when your campaign is dealing with multiple sexual harassment claims: 1. Refer to the former Speaker of the House as "Princess Nancy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 I just read a couple of live-blogs and recaps of the debate. How are any of these people considered serious candidates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 12:43 PM) I'll preface this with.. I think Herman Cain is a joke. However here's how he should have handled it, in my opinion. - Yes, nearly 2 decades ago there were allegations that I had behaved inappropriately with a few co-workers/employees of mine. - I believed then, as I do today, that I did nothing wrong and that the allegations against me were false. - We had determined, at that time as a business executive and not as a politican, that it was in our best interest to settle these matters without incurring lengthy court battles and legal costs. - Had I known that more than 20 years later, these allegations would resurfice, and that I would become a politician seeking the highest office in the land, I would have chosen to fight these false claims at that time. I'd also try to make an analogy, carefully, of someone who receives a ticket and decides to pay the fine, rather than go to court and fight it. (obviously the severaty of the claim is 1000x worse, but that's why I said carefully) I'm sorry, no. You're personal experience means nothing to this debate about sexual harassment and victims generally. - Strangesox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 08:48 AM) I'm sorry, no. You're personal experience means nothing to this debate about sexual harassment and victims generally. - Strangesox It's "your" not "you're" Also what personal experience is he talking about there? edit: I understand it's a joke post I just don't get the joke Edited November 10, 2011 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 9, 2011 -> 01:36 PM) Yes, it's a giant ad hominem from the Cain campaign. ----------------------------------------------------------------- It is irrelevant to whether or not Cain harassed her. This line of argument leads to the conclusion that people who have made past mistakes cannot be victims of abuse by people who are powerful. So she has a history of being a defendant in what appears to be related lawsuits and financial claims against her. This does nothing to address her claims of being abused. It's an attack on her character in order to disparage her claims without actually addressing the claims. This is relevant how? This is relevant how? Why is this "curious?" She clearly does not intent to take legal action. Because Cain is running for President and a news organization found that Cain's previous employer had to settle two unrelated sexual harassment claims for a significant amount of money. Or maybe it's the racist Perry Democrat Machine trying to keep a businessman out of the White House! These are the only possibly legitimate statements in the whole thing, but even this plays right back into the whole disgusting idea that sexual harassment claims are just ways for dumb, humorless gold-diggers to get money. All of it is relevant in assessing her credibility, which is the only thing you can do in a he said-she said kind of case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 08:50 AM) It's "your" not "you're" Also what personal experience is he talking about there? edit: I understand it's a joke post I just don't get the joke lol, crap. i haven't had my coffee yet. And that was just a jab about how you always consider personal anecdotes irrelevant as a basis for explaining one's perspective on a given issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 10, 2011 -> 08:52 AM) All of it is relevant in assessing her credibility, which is the only thing you can do in a he said-she said kind of case. That she filed bankruptcy in the past has no real bearing on her credibility. It is simply to tarnish her character. edit: unless you view economics as a big morality play, where losers are punished and fail and bankruptcy is a sign of weakness or a character flaw. Edited November 10, 2011 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts