What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

Kepler said:
Apply parsimony. He was never actually "unaware" of the charges or settlement. He tried to bluff his way through, and by the end of the day he'd completely reversed himself. I don't think he sounded dumb or uncertain; what he sounded was mendacious and lawyering the point, like Bill Clinton's "it depends on what "is" is or "I did not have sex with that woman." Put bluntly: he was lying.

So basically he didn't affect my judgment of his fitness for president at all. :D
Click to expand...

Hey, "it's just sex," what's the big deal? Only it wasn't sex. It was b*tches "feeling uncomfortable" about "non sexual gestures" (I'm still waiting for examples of what those are). So, amazingly, libtards have one standard for Kennedy (all of 'em), Edwards and of course, Clinton. And another for Cain and Clarence Thomas. In the latter two cases, even the accusers didn't claim there was any sexual contact. But in the case of Kennedys, Clinton and Edwards there was sexual contact, evidently, every day.
 
Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

Kepler said:
I'll give you credit for patience, anyway.

4d052_funny-pictures-you-can-lead-a-flamingo-to-water.jpg


You're trying to use reason to refute emotion.
Click to expand...

So difficult to mingle with the masses, isn't it? But it's part of the job, and you do the best you can. And we're all so grateful.
 
Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

Old Pio said:
I neither implied nor expressed nor intended to express any reference to "dark and evil liberal forces." What you been smokin', boy? You ought to try responding to what I actually post, rather than your reflexive tu toque libtard talking points.
Click to expand...

Its not my fault another one of your heroes is going down in flames. Maybe you should find some better champions for your cause. I hear David Duke isn't too busy nowadays...
 
Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

I get the democratic process, but...

Is Cain done yet? Except for this summer's long-shot flareout by Perry, this has been a predestined Romney/Obama election for over a year.
 
Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

Rover said:
Its not my fault another one of your heroes is going down in flames. Maybe you should find some better champions for your cause. I hear David Duke isn't too busy nowadays...
Click to expand...

And the horse you rode in on, putz. Typical libtard smear: " anyone who dares disagree with me has to be a Nazi or a Klansman (Duke is both)." Years ago I worked in Baton Rouge, and Duke famously used to prance around the campus of LSU dressed up in his little brownshirt outfit. While he had a right to do it, I wished profoundly for a member of their football team to turn him into a grease spot. Herman Cain is no "hero" of mine, although I do know him a bit. But in your fanatical efforts to deny him even a modicum of preseumption of innocence, let me make my point again. Evidently you're unwilling or incapable of understanding it.

There was a huge double standard as between Clarence Thomas and Bill Clinton. Thomas allegedly talked dirty to a subordinate. And the libtards instructed us that this was horrible because it involved a powerful man and a "defenseless" woman (who was a graduate of one of America's most prestigious law schools). Then it transpired that Clinton went several orders of magnitude beyond just talking dirty, as president, with an intern. This business about powerful men and "helpless" women then just went away. It wasn't important any more. Even a libtard toad should be able to process this hypocrisy.

Even in "jest" it is morally wrong to connect me with David Duke. He is a repulsive anti-Semite and racist. And your libtard instinct to go for the cheap smear doesn't enhance your arguments. Just the opposite.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

Old Pio said:
And the horse you rode in on, putz. Typical libtard smear: " anyone who dares disagree with me has to be a Nazi or a Klansman (Duke is both)." Years ago I worked in Baton Rouge, and Duke famously used to prance around the campus of LSU dressed up in his little brownshirt outfit. While he had a right to do it, I wished profoundly for a member of their football team to turn him into a grease spot. Herman Cain is no "hero" of mine, although I do know him a bit. But in your fanatical efforts to deny him even a modicum of preseumption of innocence, let me make my point again. Evidently you're unwilling or incapable of understanding it.

There was a huge double standard as between Clarence Thomas and Bill Clinton. Thomas allegedly talked dirty to a subordinate. And the libtards instructed us that this was horrible because it involved a powerful man and a "defenseless" woman (who was a graduate of one of America's most prestigious law schools). Then it transpired that Clinton went several orders of magnitude beyond just talking dirty, as president, with an intern. This business about powerful men and "helpless" women then just went away. It wasn't important any more. Even a libtard toad should be able to process this hypocrisy.

Even in "jest" it is morally wrong to connect me with David Duke. He is a repulsive anti-Semite and racist. And your libtard instinct to go for the cheap smear doesn't enhance your arguments. Just the opposite.
Click to expand...


Oh boo hoo hoo. If you're going to post out here I'd suggest you grow a pair. The difference between Thomas and Cain (if true) and Clinton (or Edwards) is consensual vs non consensual. Even you ought to be able to figure that out. If Herm is waving his unit around the office in front of the female staff, that's worse than Clinton banging overweight interns because these women (who were paid to go away mind you, Lewinsky didn't get any cash from Clinton) were not willing participants. Take a few days and see if you can sort through that.

Regarding if these charges are baseless or not, look that's politics. In 8 years of being President, and even before that as a candidate, Clinton was alleged to have had 100 political opponents wacked, sexually assaulted numerous women, run drugs out of rural Arkansas airports, worshiped Satan, fathered a child with a prostitute and God knows what else. All of these were laughable and despite millions of dollars spent generated no leads nor any dent in the man's approval ratings which superceded any President (including Reagan) at the time going back decades. Methinks ol' Herm needs to toughen up, because the scrutiny is only going to get worse, and for the record nobody is disputing these women settled a harassment case against him so I'm not sure what the source of your anger is here.
 
Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

Rover said:
Oh boo hoo hoo. If you're going to post out here I'd suggest you grow a pair. The difference between Thomas and Cain (if true) and Clinton (or Edwards) is consensual vs non consensual. Even you ought to be able to figure that out. If Herm is waving his unit around the office in front of the female staff, that's worse than Clinton banging overweight interns because these women (who were paid to go away mind you, Lewinsky didn't get any cash from Clinton) were not willing participants. Take a few days and see if you can sort through that.

Regarding if these charges are baseless or not, look that's politics. In 8 years of being President, and even before that as a candidate, Clinton was alleged to have had 100 political opponents wacked, sexually assaulted numerous women, run drugs out of rural Arkansas airports, worshiped Satan, fathered a child with a prostitute and God knows what else. All of these were laughable and despite millions of dollars spent generated no leads nor any dent in the man's approval ratings which superceded any President (including Reagan) at the time going back decades. Methinks ol' Herm needs to toughen up, because the scrutiny is only going to get worse, and for the record nobody is disputing these women settled a harassment case against him so I'm not sure what the source of your anger is here.
Click to expand...

You forgot having his life long pal Vince Foster whacked. I've explained it twice. You are impervious to the notion of a dual standard as between Thomas and Clinton. As to "growing a pair," that's the level of discourse we've come to know and love from you and many other libtard oafs.

No one other than you has suggested Cain "waived his unit" at these "ladies." What is alleged is that he made non sexual gestures, which in the minds of hysterical feminists, made them feel "uncomfortable," whatever that means. Your willingness to fill in the blanks here is amazing, adding details nobody else has suggested.

And this business about "consensual" versus "non consensual" again simply ignores my typically brilliant explaination (twice) of the point I was trying to make. It has nothing whatsoever to do with consent. It has to do with one libtard standard for Thomas and another for Clinton. Of course, in libtardland, the point was that a female in an unbalanced power relationship with a man can't make an informed decision of whether or not to "consent," if the man's name is Thomas (even though there was no sexual contact). But she can if the man's name is Clinton. But then, I suspect you know that and are just offering the customary tu toque change of subject.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

It has been announced that a presidential debate will be held in October of next year at Magness Arena. The feeling is the exposure will be a plus for DU. Here's my question: is this the first time debates and venues have been decided before both candidates are even selected? I seem to recall in previous cycles, there were always "negotiations" about if there were going to be debates, and if so, how many, and if so where. Has the president and all the GOP contenders agreed to this procedure? Just curious. Not complaining. If this has all been explained somewhere, I've missed it.
 
Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

I don't recall venues/cities being negotiated in the past, but I certainly recall all the other things being argued about by the campaigns. Perhaps the commission or whoever it is that decides this stuff feels comfortable selecting 2-3 venues well in advance under the assumption that we'll always have at least two presidential debates plus a VP debate.
 
Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

Bakunin said:
I don't recall venues/cities being negotiated in the past, but I certainly recall all the other things being argued about by the campaigns. Perhaps the commission or whoever it is that decides this stuff feels comfortable selecting 2-3 venues well in advance under the assumption that we'll always have at least two presidential debates plus a VP debate.
Click to expand...

I don't recall debate decisions ever being made before the conventions. There were always "negotiations." And media coverage. And announcements, ultimately that agreement had been reached, etc. I'm not complaining. It's just that this early resolution to the "problem" seems to have gotten no comment. And I'm feeling maybe I slept through all the stories about how "this year we're gonna do it differently." Possible. I've seen no mention of a VP debate and let's hope there won't be one. A Bentsen/Quayle moment comes along once in a generation and has all the spontaneity of a Kim Jong Il rally.
 
Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

5mn_Major said:
I get the democratic process, but...

Is Cain done yet? Except for this summer's long-shot flareout by Perry, this has been a predestined Romney/Obama election for over a year.
Click to expand...
Yes, Captain Flip-Flop will win the nomination. Proving once and for all the hypocrisy of everyone on the right.
 
Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

Old Pio said:
You forgot having his life long pal Vince Foster whacked. I've explained it twice. You are impervious to the notion of a dual standard as between Thomas and Clinton. As to "growing a pair," that's the level of discourse we've come to know and love from you and many other libtard oafs.

No one other than you has suggested Cain "waived his unit" at these "ladies." What is alleged is that he made non sexual gestures, which in the minds of hysterical feminists, made them feel "uncomfortable," whatever that means. Your willingness to fill in the blanks here is amazing, adding details nobody else has suggested.

And this business about "consensual" versus "non consensual" again simply ignores my typically brilliant explaination (twice) of the point I was trying to make. It has nothing whatsoever to do with consent. It has to do with one libtard standard for Thomas and another for Clinton. Of course, in libtardland, the point was that a female in an unbalanced power relationship with a man can't make an informed decision of whether or not to "consent," if the man's name is Thomas (even though there was no sexual contact). But she can if the man's name is Clinton. But then, I suspect you know that and are just offering the customary tu toque change of subject.
Click to expand...

And again, what you're missing is the fact that a lawsuit was settled against the Herminator, so why wouldn't this generate press coverage??? Lewinskly didn't sue Clinton, and for that matter I don't believe Anita Hill sued Thomas. No double standard for Clinton-Thomas, as both got intense press coverage and frankly Thomas' incident was worse as his accuser was an unwilling participant. In this case, there was money paid out so any responsible press outfit would air the story. Worse is the guy's constantly changing story, especially about not knowing he was sued or that it was settled which strains his credibility down to your level.
 
Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

ScoobyDoo said:
Yes, Captain Flip-Flop will win the nomination. Proving once and for all the hypocrisy of everyone on the right.
Click to expand...

To me is highlights the split within the GOP. You have the "right" and then you have the more moderate branch which is where the power within the party has traditionally come from. If the "right" had most of the power no way McCain wins the nomination last round or Romney has a chance this time out.

In theory the "far right" could have the most power, but it is a very splintered group between a host of fiscal and social issues.
 
Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

ScoobyDoo said:
Yes, Captain Flip-Flop will win the nomination. Proving once and for all the hypocrisy of everyone on the right.
Click to expand...

Wait...which candidate is Captain Flip-Flop? They all qualify for that title...
 
Re: 2012 Elections: Corndogs for everyone!

Rover said:
And again, what you're missing is the fact that a lawsuit was settled against the Herminator, so why wouldn't this generate press coverage??? Lewinskly didn't sue Clinton, and for that matter I don't believe Anita Hill sued Thomas. No double standard for Clinton-Thomas, as both got intense press coverage and frankly Thomas' incident was worse as his accuser was an unwilling participant. In this case, there was money paid out so any responsible press outfit would air the story. Worse is the guy's constantly changing story, especially about not knowing he was sued or that it was settled which strains his credibility down to your level.
Click to expand...

You figure by throwing irrelevant matters at this problem it will distract from the obvious, glaring dual standard you and the rest of the libtards are applying. Lawsuits, settlements and stories to the presss are interesting and relevant (perhaps) to this incident but not to the respone to Clinton/Thomas. You're simply so suffused with libtard rationalizations and justifications (and a very short memory) that you've convinced yourself this case is unique and different. The relentless heart of the matter with Thomas in the eyes of the MSM and feminists was that as Thomas' subordinate, Anita Hill couldn't consent to any advances by Thomas (which she never claimed in any case) because he was her boss. But Bill Clinton was Monica's boss and in the eyes of libtard hypocriets, the power differential didn't matter. The indisputable fact of the matter is libtards opposed Thomas' nomination to the court, and supported Clinton, notwithstanding the fact he conducted his personal life like a sailor on leave in Tijuana.

So your last ditch "there isn't a dual standard here" defense is: lawsuits and press coverage. Nothing to see here, nobody filed a lawsuit. Reality is determined by lawyers? No such thing as a suit filed in bad faith? And both incidents were covered in the press? Come on. And your faith that the MSM would have "inevitably" learned of the Cain settlements without a little help is misplaced. I understand you're willing to drink the Kool aid in defense of Clinton or of libtards in general, or something. But this is ridiculous. Libtards and especially feminists took a powder on Bill Clinton's behavior, while proclaiming themselves to be "shocked, shocked" at what Anita Hill said Clarence Thomas "did" to her (denied by Thomas and no proof offered). At worst, the unmarried Thomas talked dirty to the unmarried Hill. While the POTUS used a cigar, in the Oval, on a silly young woman. And subsequently lied about it under oath. And the reactions in libtard land to both behaviors was, uh, different.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top