Herman Cain Has a Sense of Humor!

[kshillbillys]

No Anmar, I'm not ignorant of any facts...I said, "what kind of woman waits 14 years" speaking of this idiot Bialek that came out yesterday. I'm not a moron and heard in the news just like you did about the other women who have crawled out of the woodwork.
I, unlike you, cannot speak of Cain's "obvious" guilt. I was not there. I am not defending him as a Republican. I'm pissed about the whole thing in general. I also don't like your comment about the accusers not coming out before because it wasn't relevant. IF these things happen to a woman, it's usually pretty relevant to her, her family, her boyfriend, somebody and they are going to scream it from the rooftop THEN and not wait 14 YEARS when they think they can get something for their 15 minutes of fame!

[srkruzich]

What kind of woman who is describing the things that Cain allegedly did, waits 14 years before ever saying anything about it? Who would wait that long? No report of it 14 YEARS ago when he supposedly did this?

Simple fact is they wouldn't. This is a common weapon used by the left to affect the outcome of elections.  Herman cain is a threat to obama if he gets the nomination so they will do whatever it takes to discredit him so he won't be running against obama.  Its so classic i am surprised folks even still fall for this tactic.
simple fact is Cain came off the plantation and the massa's are upset.

[srkruzich]

To Steve:  Sexual harrassment isn't a felony.  Its a civil matter.  Its up to the accusers to settle their issues with Cain in court or through mediation, which leads me to Jennifer...

Civil my ass, its highly uncivil using ones power to essentially force someone to do sexual favors.  Thats rape.  Just because one doesn't hold the person down and by force take them doesn't mean using ones power over the other persons life to get the same thing isn't the same crime. 

But i do not know if cain did so and there is no proof at all that he did. IF these women did not take it to court, then i have to go with innocent.  Sorry but thats the way it is.  No reason to slander and demonize someone  who hasn't been proven and faced their accusers.
As far as Settlements, i have seen it happen enough in business that i am highly skepticle of anyone in  a company when they claim sexual harrassment these days.  It is and has been a lottery for certain people that make these allegations.  THe destruction they can cause just by a allegation will result in a fast payoff and a confidentiality agreement that keeps them silent.   

On that note, Steve, thanks for being willing to speak your own mind, despite the fact that your opinion may be unpopular.  welcome to the club.

I have always said what I think and don't care who doesn't like it.   Shrug. 

[Wilma]

Steve, I couldn't agree with you more on this.  If a woman is assaulted, she should immediately report it.  It is interesting what is showing up in the histories of these women.  Also, a settlement does not indicate guilt.  It just indicates that the company didn't want to go through a lot of hassle with it.  And weren't the women terminated as part of the deals?

[Diane Amberg]

All sides can and will use unsavory tactics when they think it will get them something.That goes back a very long time, when votes were bought right out in the open and all sorts of "favors" were done. It's sad, but none of it is new.

[Teresa]

listen to both video's...

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/11/08/video-herman-cain-holds-news-conference-to-address-sharon-bialek%E2%80%99s-sexual-harassment-allegations-says-it-simply-didn%E2%80%99t-happen/

[Teresa]

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47438


Herman Cain​ has spent his life living and working all over the country -- Indiana, Georgia, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Washington, D.C. -- but never in Chicago.

So it's curious that all the sexual harassment allegations against Cain emanate from Chicago: home of the Daley machine and Obama consigliere David Axelrod​.

Suspicions had already fallen on Sheila O'Grady, who is close with David Axelrod and went straight from being former Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley's chief of staff to president of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA), as being the person who dug up Herman Cain's personnel records from the National Restaurant Association (NRA).

The Daley-controlled IRA works hand-in-glove with the NRA. And strangely enough, Cain's short, three-year tenure at the NRA is evidently the only period in his decades-long career during which he's alleged to have been a sexual predator.

After O'Grady's name surfaced in connection with the miraculous appearance of Cain's personnel files from the NRA, she issued a Clintonesque denial of any involvement in producing them -- by vigorously denying that she knew Cain when he was at the NRA. (Duh.)

And now, after a week of conservative eye-rolling over unspecified, anonymous accusations against Cain, we've suddenly got very specific sexual assault allegations from an all-new accuser out of ... Chicago.

Herman Cain has never lived in Chicago. But you know who has? David Axelrod! And guess who lived in Axelrod's very building? Right again: Cain's latest accuser, Sharon Bialek.

Bialek's accusations were certainly specific. But they also demonstrated why anonymous accusations are worthless.

Within 24 hours of Bialek's press conference, friends and acquaintances of hers stepped forward to say that she's a "gold-digger," that she was constantly in financial trouble -- having filed for personal bankruptcy twice -- and, of course, that she had lived in Axelrod's apartment building at 505 North Lake Shore Drive, where, she admits, she knew the man The New York Times calls Obama's "hired muscle."

Throw in some federal tax evasion, and she's Obama's next Cabinet pick.

The reason all this is relevant is that both Axelrod and Daley have a history of smearing political opponents by digging up claims of sexual misconduct against them.

John Brooks, Chicago's former fire commissioner, filed a lawsuit against Daley six months ago claiming Daley threatened to smear him with sexual harassment accusations if Brooks didn't resign. He resigned -- and the sexual harassment allegations were later found to be completely false.

Meanwhile, as extensively detailed in my book Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America, the only reason Obama became a U.S. senator -- allowing him to run for president -- is that David Axelrod pulled sealed divorce records out of a hat, first, against Obama's Democratic primary opponent, and then against Obama's Republican opponent.

One month before the 2004 Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, Obama was way down in the polls, about to lose to Blair Hull, a multimillionaire securities trader.

But then The Chicago Tribune -- where Axelrod used to work -- began publishing claims that Hull's second ex-wife, Brenda Sexton, had sought an order of protection against him during their 1998 divorce proceedings.

From then until Election Day, Hull was embroiled in fighting the allegation that he was a "wife beater." He and his ex-wife eventually agreed to release their sealed divorce records. His first ex-wife, daughters and nanny defended him at a press conference, swearing he was never violent. During a Democratic debate, Hull was forced to explain that his wife kicked him and he had merely kicked her back.

Hull's substantial lead just a month before the primary collapsed with the nonstop media attention to his divorce records. Obama sailed to the front of the pack and won the primary. Hull finished third with 10 percent of the vote.

Luckily for Axelrod, Obama's opponent in the general election had also been divorced.

The Republican nominee was Jack Ryan, a graduate of Dartmouth and Harvard law and business schools, who had left his lucrative partnership at Goldman Sachs​ to teach at an inner-city school on the South Side of Chicago.

But in a child custody dispute some years earlier, Ryan's ex-wife, Hollywood sex kitten Jeri Lynn Ryan​, had alleged that, while the couple was married, Jack had taken her to swingers clubs in Paris and New York.

Jack Ryan adamantly denied the allegations. In the interest of protecting their son, he also requested that the records be put permanently under seal.

Axelrod's courthouse moles obtained the "sealed" records and, in no time, they were in the hands of every political operative in Chicago. Knowing perfectly well what was in the records, Chicago Tribune attorneys flew to California and requested that the court officially "unseal" them -- over the objections of both Jack and Jeri Ryan​.

Your honor, who knows what could be in these records!

A California judge ordered them unsealed, which allowed newspapers to publish the salacious allegations, and four days later, Ryan dropped out of the race under pressure from idiot Republicans (who should be tracked down and shot).

With a last-minute replacement of Alan Keyes as Obama's Republican opponent, Obama was able to set an all-time record in an Illinois Senate election, winning with a 43 percent margin.

And that's how Obama became a senator four years after losing a congressional race to Bobby Rush​. (In a disastrous turn of events, Rush was not divorced.)

Axelrod destroyed the only two men who stood between Obama and the Senate with illicitly obtained, lurid allegations from their pasts.

In 2007, long after Obama was safely ensconced in the U.S. Senate, The New York Times reported: "The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece (on Hull's sealed divorce records) later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had 'worked aggressively behind the scenes' to push the story."

Some had suggested, the Times article continued, that Axelrod had "an even more significant role -- that he leaked the initial story."

This time, Obama's little helpers have not only thrown a bomb into the Republican primary, but are hoping to destroy the man who deprives the Democrats of their only argument in 2012: If you oppose Obama, you must be a racist.

[srkruzich]

RULE 1: "Power is not only what I have, but what the enemy thinks I have."  Power is derived from two main sources -- money and people.   "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood.

(These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply.  Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

RULE 2: "I never go outside the expertise of 'my people'."  It results in confusion, fear and retreat.  Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.

(Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don't address the "real" issues.  This is why.  They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

RULE 3: "Whenever possible, I go outside the expertise of the enemy."  I look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.

(This happens all the time.  Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."  If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, I send 30,000 letters.  I can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.

(This is a serious rule.  The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."  There is no defense.  It's irrational.  It's infuriating.  It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

(Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh?  He wants to create anger and fear.)

RULE 6: "A good tactic is one 'my people' enjoy."  They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more.  They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.

(Radical activists, in this sense, are no different than any other human being.  We all avoid "un-fun" activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)

RULE 7: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag."  Don't let it become old news.

(Even radical activists get bored.  So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up."  I keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance.  As the opposition masters one approach, I hit them from the flank with something new.

(Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."  Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.

(Perception is reality.  Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists' minds.  The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions.  The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

RULE 10: "If I push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive."  Violence from the other side can win the public to my side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.

(Unions used this tactic.  Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management's wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

RULE 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."  I never let the enemy score points because I'd be caught without a solution to the problem.

(Old saw: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.  Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power.  So, they have to have a compromise solution.)

RULE 12: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."  I cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy.  I go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

(This is cruel, but very effective.  Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting.  "The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength."

[Diane Amberg]

Ah yes! At long last, the tactics against EK in print.

[Patriot]

Ah yes! At long last, the tactics against EK in print.

RULE 12: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."  I cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy.  I go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.


Seems to me that EK is the institution.  The people (and true targets) are those who question... and those who question are often attacked on this issue.  Now, who's using Alinsky's radical formulas?

RULE 6: "A good tactic is one 'my people' enjoy."  They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more.  They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.

And who are the 'tools'?