[quote=Jacarandoso][quote=eavesdropper][quote=urbanrealtor]If he settled a harassment complaint (or 2) for about 100k and did not actually get some ass in the process, then I am calling him out as a straight up punk…..[/quote]
This is true. I’m afraid that such a scenario does not speak well of his effectiveness as a innovative businessman or tough negotiator.
It brings to mind the picture of the ineffective career politician so frequently derided by Mr. Cain.[/quote]
How is he supposed to get “some ass” from someone who doesn’t want it and then get away with sexual harassment instead of rape? The victim would call the police before a lawyer right? Are there cases where the “sexually harassed” actually voluntarily went all the way that don’t get laughed out of court…if the person has the nerve to go there?[/quote]
In forming my response, I took the liberty of interpreting (perhaps in error) urbanrealtor’s post as one written tongue-in-cheek style, with a dollop of sarcasm. It was the intent to continue in this vein in my response, using phrases and references often utilized by Mr. Cain to communicate negative or positive qualities. It was not meant to be a serious response, nor was it meant to belittle the seriousness of the charge of sexual harassment.
However, you bring up a salient point that has not been observed (or at least commented upon) by our on-the-job reporters and pundits in Washington, when they listen to Herman Cain (and his erstwhile Marlboro Man campaign manager) insist that the National Restaurant Association paid off Cain’s accusers because “sexual harrassment is very difficult to prove”.
Exactly! Any form of harassment, particularly in the absence of clear-cut physical evidence, is virtually impossible to prove. Lawyers know this, and many will not take a plaintiff’s case if no such evidence is in existence. However, it was up to the PLAINTIFFS in the Cain-related cases to PROVE the charge, not the National Restaurant Association. And one can be sure that the NRA’s corporate attorneys would not have settled even one dollar on any of those women unless they believed that their client was about to be placed in a position of having to DEFEND itself against charges that were supported by compelling evidence.
So, yeah, I’m thinking ol’Herman’s guilty in spades. And coming on the heels of that bizarre campaign advertisement, where he breaks into that “I know something you don’t know” creepy smile at the end, I’m gonna have a real hard time changing my mind.
