OT: Bimbo Eruptions

[Coronita]

[quote=AN]They all should just take a lie detector test and see who’s telling the truth.[/quote]

Politician + lie detector = does not compute

[an]

[quote=flu][quote=AN]They all should just take a lie detector test and see who’s telling the truth.[/quote]

Politician + lie detector = does not compute[/quote]
Haha, then Cain should just pay each of them $50k to take the lie detector test if he’s so confident he didn’t do anything. I’m sure they would take the $50k.

[Zeitgeist]

I do not recall any of the previous fellows: Clinton, Schwarzenegger mentioned in this kind of accusation willing to take a polygraph, but I could be incorrect. Also, the current client of Gloria A. who accused Cain of sexual harassment was more than harassed if he touched her genitals. It sounds more like a sexual battery, but perhaps that law did not exist at the time she said he “touched” her. Unlike Monica, she has not produced any evidence. If Cain drops out, which I doubt he will, then I am sure they have more bimbos lined up for the rest of the people running on the ticket, probably with the exception of Ron Paul.

“Sexual battery is an unwanted form of contact with an intimate part of the body that is made for purposes of sexual arousal, sexual gratification or sexual abuse. Sexual battery may occur whether the victim is clothed or not. It is a crime, which varies by state laws, so local laws should be consulted. http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sexual-battery/)

[poorgradstudent]

In general, one data point is meaningless, two is worth investigating, and three makes a trend.

That said, I don’t really care, because Cain is a terrible Presidential candidate anyways. 9-9-9 is a huge tax increase and wealth redistribution plan, stealing from the poor and giving to corporations. Cain has no coherent policy on social issues; he had a rational moderate stance on abortion that he flipped on when he realized it wouldn’t fly with Republican primary voters.

By all means, if you want 4 more years of Obama (which I do, for the record), nominate Cain. He has the potential to get thrashed worse than Mondale did. He reminds me a lot of Sharon Angle, the woman largely responsible for Harry Reid holding his senate seat.

[markmax33]

[quote=poorgradstudent]In general, one data point is meaningless, two is worth investigating, and three makes a trend.

That said, I don’t really care, because Cain is a terrible Presidential candidate anyways. 9-9-9 is a huge tax increase and wealth redistribution plan, stealing from the poor and giving to corporations. Cain has no coherent policy on social issues; he had a rational moderate stance on abortion that he flipped on when he realized it wouldn’t fly with Republican primary voters.

By all means, if you want 4 more years of Obama (which I do, for the record), nominate Cain. He has the potential to get thrashed worse than Mondale did. He reminds me a lot of Sharon Angle, the woman largely responsible for Harry Reid holding his senate seat.[/quote]

Personally I don’t think this should be news, but I did find it ironic that both ladies who accused him were about the same age and had the same look. If all of the accusers end up looking about the same with the same look I think it makes his case look much worse. It really shouldn’t matter though. It’s between him and his wife.

I couldn’t vote for him because the 9% sales tax would require an ammendment to the constitution and 75% of the states would have to ratify it and that would be impossible. His 9-9-9 plan is not viable, although he has an ounce of charisma and speaks well.

[markmax33]

[quote=jstoesz]Why cant republicans find a Ron Paul with a foreign policy based in reality? Painful really. Romney is a pandering joke.

If it is Obama v Romney, I fear I’ll spit the vote for Paul. Sad…[/quote]

I find it strange people attack Ron Paul’s foriegn policy. We have 900 bases in 130+ countries and we are $15 trillion dollars in debt. It seems like the easiest thing in the world to bring home 50,000 troops that have been in Germany for years proping up their economy and sucking from ours. What about all the troops in Japan? We spent close to 50% of our tax money last year on National Offense and it doesn’t help protect our borders. I think everyone who doesn’t agree with his foriegn policy should watch this study of the every single suicide attack by this professor in Chicago:

The CIA says the same thing and everyone should google blowback and read about that.

[scaredyclassic]

Being the worlds reserve currency has value?

Is there a relationship between being omnipresent militarily and remaining the worlds reserve currency?

If so are we getting a good deal?

[enron_by_the_sea]

Why do we take tax plans of presidential candidates seriously? Sure, Cain has one plan, Perry has another, Romney has third, Paul has fourth and heck Obama used to have one when he was a candidate too.

The fact is that all the tax-plans are the same as toilet paper to me. They are meaningless unless ratified by Congress and signed off by Supreme court. There is fat chance that any of these pie-in-the-sky schemes will ever get through congress. In fact the more radical the plan is, the less is its chance of passing.

So tax-plans are good for the presidential candidates themselves to get TV time, generate controversies and they serve as red meat for their passionate supporters, but to me, as a detached observer, they are just toilet paper!

[markmax33]

[quote=walterwhite]Being the worlds reserve currency has value?

Is there a relationship between being omnipresent militarily and remaining the worlds reserve currency?

If so are we getting a good deal?[/quote]

The only thing that has happened to every empire, the Roman, the Russian and English empires are the best examples, is that they print so much currency that it becomes worthless and then the empire collapses. That was why we fought for our independence from England to begin with and why a central bank was illegal.

We aren’t really the world’s reserve currency any more, or not as much as we were. China is now a net seller of US dollars and China bought 10 times more gold this October than last October. I don’t think Japan has completely given up but the world powers are quietly selling their position. You hear them talking about buying gold and other currencies all the time on CNBC now. We should not be complacent. When the dollar starts to go, it happens quick and it’s UGLY.

[markmax33]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]Why do we take tax plans of presidential candidates seriously? Sure, Cain has one plan, Perry has another, Romney has third, Paul has fourth and heck Obama used to have one when he was a candidate too.

The fact is that all the tax-plans are the same as toilet paper to me. They are meaningless unless ratified by Congress and signed off by Supreme court. There is fat chance that any of these pie-in-the-sky schemes will ever get through congress. In fact the more radical the plan is, the less is its chance of passing.

So tax-plans are good for the presidential candidates themselves to get TV time, generate controversies and they serve as red meat for their passionate supporters, but to me, as a detached observer, they are just toilet paper![/quote]

I strongly disagree with this point. The problem is there hasn’t been a President to have a balanced budget and THEREFORE could not lower taxes. Ron Paul will EASILY be allowed to lower taxes if he cuts the spending first. The rest of these fools will increase spending and will never lower/modify taxes. Ron Paul has presented a tax plan to cut $1T from NEXT YEAR’s budget. The “super committee” is discussing cutting $1T over 10 YEARS! They are only cutting INCREASES, not current spending and the MAJORITY OF THE CUTS ARE IN YEARS 8-10 WHEN THE POLITICIANS WON’T BE IN POWER.

The president is the Commander and Chief and can IMMEDIATELY bring home the troops and stop spending 50% or more of the budget on National Offense. He NEEDS NO CONGRESSIONAL HELP to get the ball rolling.

[zk]

[quote=markmax33] It really shouldn’t matter though. It’s between him and his wife.

[/quote]

I disagree. Extramarital sex is between you and your wife. But using your position to attempt to coerce women into having sex with you shows that 1) you can’t be trusted not to abuse your power and 2) you’re morally bankrupt.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/11/07/_you_want_a_job_don_t_you_.html

[svelte]

[quote=zk][quote=markmax33] It really shouldn’t matter though. It’s between him and his wife.

[/quote]

I disagree. Extramarital sex is between you and your wife. But using your position to attempt to coerce women into having sex with you shows that 1) you can’t be trusted not to abuse your power and 2) you’re morally bankrupt.
[/quote]

Totally agree with that. I have no problem with extramarital sex. I do have a problem if (a) your wife doesn’t approve of it (ala Maria Shriver) or (b) you get it through coersion or abuse of power.

And I had to laugh at your comment, CBad. I thought I was going to read about bread in this thread myself!!!

[ctr70]

[quote=poorgradstudent]In general, one data point is meaningless, two is worth investigating, and three makes a trend.

That said, I don’t really care, because Cain is a terrible Presidential candidate anyways. 9-9-9 is a huge tax increase and wealth redistribution plan, stealing from the poor and giving to corporations. Cain has no coherent policy on social issues; he had a rational moderate stance on abortion that he flipped on when he realized it wouldn’t fly with Republican primary voters.

By all means, if you want 4 more years of Obama (which I do, for the record), nominate Cain. He has the potential to get thrashed worse than Mondale did. He reminds me a lot of Sharon Angle, the woman largely responsible for Harry Reid holding his senate seat.[/quote]

I haven’t been following the elections heavily, but Cain doesn’t look too strong. I’m definitely not a tax the rich guy as a solution to all that ills the world. Being a small business owner myself that has hustled and been frugal my whole life to create a good life, I just hate to see a big chunk of my money get sucked into the inefficient Government waste machine. I’ve always liked the idea of the flat tax. I do not like to DIS-incentivise financial success but taxing the crap out of people that achieve financial success.

But I would really love to see a REAL business person get the presidency (George W. was not a REAL self-made business person and Arnold was an actor, not a real biz person). Just like I was hoping a businesswomen (Meg Whitman) would have won the CA governorship vs. the career bureaucrat that won. No more lawyers and career bureaucrats that have never had real jobs outside of politics. I like to see someone that has had the responsibility of employing people in the private sector, running a company, innovating, running a balance sheet, etc… I have always wanted to see Micheal Bloomberg run.

And I’m an independent, I’m not on the right or the left. And I am not an Obama hater, I actually think he is OK.

[SK in CV]

[quote=markmax33] The problem is there hasn’t been a President to have a balanced budget and THEREFORE could not lower taxes. [/quote]

Yes, there was. Clinton, his last 3 years in office. Better than balanced, a nominal surplus in excess of $400 billion his last 3 years, and even ignoring the huge SS surplus in those years, still had a surplus in each of those years. With tax rates higher than they are today. Those pesky facts.

[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.

[Author]

Posts