Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're right--I didn't read it. I rarely bother with links from this OP anymore. You're right though--it could have been a woman or it could have been a man. It doesn't make any difference--if you go back and take a look at the Herman Cain threads here, the case was made pretty clearly that everyone who makes sexual harrassment claims must be lying, because it simply wasn't possible that Herman Cain abused the multiple people who made those charges against him...over and over. By the same logic, this all has to be BS too, right? Or is it DIFFERENT because it's a different party?
Again--hypocrites.
It has nothing to do with being a "hypocrite"...The Democratic PUBLIC are the ones who played the "morality" card by pointing out the disparity in sex offenses between parties...
It's irrelevant because the ratio means nothing...it shows that there are plenty of sexual deviants in both party and just blows the stupid angle to bits.
You're right--I didn't read it. I rarely bother with links from this OP anymore. You're right though--it could have been a woman or it could have been a man. It doesn't make any difference--if you go back and take a look at the Herman Cain threads here, the case was made pretty clearly that everyone who makes sexual harrassment claims must be lying, because it simply wasn't possible that Herman Cain abused the multiple people who made those charges against him...over and over. By the same logic, this all has to be BS too, right? Or is it DIFFERENT because it's a different party?
Again--hypocrites.
Great decision!
I don't quite understand why the OP says "probably a male" who was harassed. It is well know by statistics that most sexual harassers are men. That's not sexist, it just is.
You're right--I didn't read it. I rarely bother with links from this OP anymore. You're right though--it could have been a woman or it could have been a man. It doesn't make any difference--if you go back and take a look at the Herman Cain threads here, the case was made pretty clearly that everyone who makes sexual harrassment claims must be lying, because it simply wasn't possible that Herman Cain abused the multiple people who made those charges against him...over and over. By the same logic, this all has to be BS too, right? Or is it DIFFERENT because it's a different party?
Again--hypocrites.
Exactly, the OP defended Cain left and right and called the women liars and worse. She also defends all the other republicans caught up in scandals but is quick to coem to judgement when democratis called out.
Beside most of her links are from from severely leaning right-wing blogs or articles.
It has nothing to do with being a "hypocrite"...The Democratic PUBLIC are the ones who played the "morality" card by pointing out the disparity in sex offenses between parties...
It's irrelevant because the ratio means nothing...it shows that there are plenty of sexual deviants in both party and just blows the stupid angle to bits.
They are ALL scoundrels.
Sexual harrassment is a VERY big deal. A bunch of you absolutely ARE hypocrites. You defended Herman Cain to the WALL, claimed most people make up the charges for money, and now you think they're real because they're coming out of the other camp? Seriously?
I'm not a D, but as far as them playing the "morality card" for having concerns over a candidate who was accused of sexual harrassment OVER AND OVER by multiple victims--they were right. My morals tell me that's a pretty big problem. If you're saying that it was a "card" to play for politics vs. a real character concern over a potential leader of the free world, then I can't help you.
If you have evidence that the president stated that he was going to change local laws on reporting sexual abuse and/or settlements in those cases, please do provide it.
For the record--I think sexual harrassment is a very big deal. I just have a really hard time taking some of you seriously after the Cain situation, and the way you contorted yourself to defend him. I think the "lying dirtbag" tied with hypocrite label needs to be applied, but it's not to the women who come forward with charges.
Question. Why did all the women who made claims against Cain vanish AFTER he withdrew fro running.
One would think they came forward because it was the right thing to do and would pursue justice to the end.
Or maybe, their claims were for politics only. Hmm
Question. Why did all the women who made claims against Cain vanish AFTER he withdrew fro running.
One would think they came forward because it was the right thing to do and would pursue justice to the end.
Or maybe, their claims were for politics only. Hmm
Maybe because he was trying to run for president, and they didn't want someone like that in office?
Now that he's not a candidate--now that he's nothing--what difference would it make and why would they bother? What would they change at this point by saying anything? I can't believe you're seriously asking this.
Do you think things through before you just start talking?
But I thought all women who file sexual harrassment claims are lying dirt bags out to take advantage of men...or at least the was the line when Herman Cains little problems came out....
Did we EVER find out the details, the charges, the TRUTH? NO.....the women went back under their rocks after making unsubstantiated, unproven claims against Cain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1547
You're right--I didn't read it. I rarely bother with links from this OP anymore. You're right though--it could have been a woman or it could have been a man. It doesn't make any difference--if you go back and take a look at the Herman Cain threads here, the case was made pretty clearly that everyone who makes sexual harrassment claims must be lying, because it simply wasn't possible that Herman Cain abused the multiple people who made those charges against him...over and over. By the same logic, this all has to be BS too, right? Or is it DIFFERENT because it's a different party?
Again--hypocrites.
Right, unless you want to try and hijack the thread. I would appreciate it if you'd just ignore my threads in that case.
It's not ME making the claim that if this gets out in the media, the dems in NC will be discredited, finished......that comes from a democrat.
Obviously this is a big deal.
A TOP NC democrat sexually harassed a young males staffer (according to the implications), bought him off and is trying to cover it up.
North Carolina Democratic Party executive director Jay Parmley resigned Sunday in the wake of allegations that he sexually harassed one of his former communications staffers.
Last week The Daily Caller uncovered emails that seemed to show that an unidentified state Democratic Party official, later revealed to be Parmley, sexually harassed communications staffer Adriadn Ortega.
Come clean, creeps. The more you try to cover it up, the worse it will get for the democrats...and the better it will get for the GOP.
I wonder WHO could be trying to get the AP and other news outlets to ignore/suppress this story? The White House maybe?[/b]
Imagine that, a UK paper reporting on happenings in the state of NC....when the US national media is silent.
Dunno. It didn't work!
NC Democrats' director resigns, denies harassment (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/04/15/national/a184635D04.DTL - broken link)
As far as that UK paper, it seems to be their mission to embarass the US, something I would think most of us would not like. I'm not just talking about this story.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Or is it DIFFERENT because it's a different party?
