The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
The story gets leaked to the press, possibly by a Perry supporter.
Cain makes several statements basically dismissing the story.
Woman through her lawyer states she wants to tell her side of the story since it is different from the one Cain is making publicly.
Now, can you show where she has acted in any way improperly?
Yeah, kind of like this....
So I guess its ok if you're a lib...."James Carville, the Cajun cur who will say anything, do anything to help Clinton. He's not in the media, but he is a mean machine. Carville called Paula Jones 'trailer camp trash,' a commodity with which he has had much experience."
John Robert Starr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville
Lee Atwater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
he was a reich wing favorite
"After much negotiating my client wishes to say that she does not want to discuss this any further". LOL
[QUOTE=Redress;1059930485]She did not bring up the charges, some one who knew about it did, probably with the Perry campaign last I heard. The media had to research to find out who the 2 women are.
If someone from the Perry group, the Obama group, the Romney group, or any other group had information leaked to them, then it follows that someone knowing about the confidentiality agreement had to leak it. Since I see no benefit to Cain to having leaked the agreement, than the most likely conclusion is that the other side did the leaking. I'll concede that there is a possibility that someone else may have leaked the info, but someone violated the agreement.
It frankly never occurred to me that I was blaming a woman, or women. I was addressing the leak. It would have made no difference to me if the leaker was a little green man with pink polka dots who voted Republican. The leaker is the problem.
In regards to the notion that conservatives are being hypocritical by defending Cain whereas they went after Clinton for similar allegations, let me say this:
the great hypocrisy over conservatives who support Cain is that they look past the fact that he has no political experience whatsoever. How many of these same supporters claimed Obama was unqualified for office because he was merely a junior senator and constitutional scholar?
I'm pleased by the liberal response to this issue on this and other threads. This whole thing is a typical dirty trick no matter what did or didn't happen. We have better things to talk about in this country. I mean, this guy's big issue boils down to raising taxes for the vast majority of the country and cutting taxes for the rich. How he could get elected on that platform boggles my mind.
A working class hero is something to be