Click the Pic
These lions can't figure out why you haven't donated yet.
Please Donate Monthly
Sponsors will contribute $10 for each New Monthly Donor
Posted on 11/09/2011 2:04:53 PM PST by SeekAndFind
WOW!!!! Good points. Signed and sealed. More importantly, clear. Nice post.
I have read a lot about this but I am very confused! I believe, the “5th” woman you are referring to was originally one of the 3 anonymous women, but someone “outed” her. It is also possible that the “4th” women may also have been one of the anonymous women. Supposedly two of the anonymous women got severeness settlements and one did not. The one that didn't get a settlement was supposedly from Chicago and named “Sharon”. But her story was more about being “stiffed” on an $800 dollar bottle of wine than “sexual harassment”. Sharon Bialek refused to answer when asked if she contacted the outed woman's attorney. So I am pretty sure that there are currently only three of four woman making complains not five.
Shame on you for posting this with no caveat.
You have bought into the liberal, MSM meme which is “is he guilty?”
You needed to post, along with this poll, that these polls should not be of import. So what if the allegations are true? We need to school the general public that just because the media decides to publicize accusations of sex issues of republicans does not mean we can’t vote for them!!!
It’s BS!!
How many papers or MSM sources published Larry Sinclair’s affidavit about his oral sex with Obama and Obama’s purchase and use of crack cocaine??
You people need to understand how just repackaging THEIR stories without warning your readers not to fall for THEIR slant just helps THEM.
If we don’t support Cain, whether we believe him or not, we do not then get a magic non-adulterer as president. We get a man who might be unfaithful with a man, in the white house!
So be careful how you read and post MSM articles. Do not fall for their slant. Control the story!
My order of listing is not necessarily same as how they have surfaced. So, you could be right on that. All I know is there are 5 women alleging. If any one of them comes forward who is believable to me, I could stop my support of Herman Cain. Until then, I refuse to dump our best candidate based on left wing attacks without a scintilla of evidence.
RE: Shame on you for posting this with no caveat
And why should I be ashamed? People are intelligent or stupid enough to draw their own conclusions. I can’t make decisions for anyone, only for myself.
If the MSM wants to believe he is guilty, I can do nothing about it. I go by the evidence, which in effect shows almost nothing that indicates that Cain is guilty.
I guess I am of the 46%...the 24% are just plain stupid. :) Does this mean I can go occupy Chick fil a and get a crack shake? (peppermint mocha)
This is a discussion board and we’re capable of making up our own minds. As I already commented, the importance of these polls is to show that their attacks are not working.
I believe him.
I did a poll with 2 woman who are black and voted for Hussein.One said he should step down.She loves the H and he is her Mac Daddy.Not my words but her’s.The other said he should fight and the girls are lying.
Just like the DEMS they like to spin the numbers to their advantage.
I also believe out of whatever number it is, one still remains anonymous and no word about her opinion on the matter.
If there is a Lynch Herman Cain Accuser Presser I hope any women who have worked for Herman Cain come forward and start a Herman Cain is a Decent Man Presser!
Bring it on ladies!
STAY STRONG HERMAN.....WE GOT YOUR BACK!
I suspect you are right. The only women who haven't scoped out this skank in the first ten seconds are other skanks just like her. Hence the polling disparity between 'rat women and normal women.
It'd be more interesting to see polling after faces came out.
Even false, the allegations themselves could easily kill him in the general knowing this will be a tight election for Republicans at best.
Now I know this Bialek lady has her issues, but I'm not voting for her. Before a day or two ago, I was screaming for Cain to challenge this lady on specifics. Well, looks like she got pretty specific: she named a specific night, in the late 1990’s, and specifically what he did. According to her, Cain upgraded her to a hotel suite, had some drinks with her, took her to the national headquarters in a car, parked down the street, and then reached under her skirt and pushed her heard down towards his crouch. When she told him to stop, she says he said, "You want a job don't you?" According to her, when she continued to resist, he then drove her back.
1) My question is this: Cain said last night basically there's no truth to any of these accusations. But Herman, then tell us, the American people where were you that night? Is she lying about meeting you or the hotel upgrade or the drinks or the car ride? Are all of these lies? If so, then Mr. Cain should be very specific about what the truth is. "None of these alleged incidents happened" doesn't cut it for me. He needs to be specific.
2) Cain says he doesn't know who this lady is. Yet a month ago there's at least one witness who verifies that Bialek went up and talked to Cain for about three minutes at a Tea Party convention. The witness (Jacobson) says, “It looked sort of flirtatious,” said Jacobson. “I mean they were hugging. But she could have been giving him the kiss of death for all I know. I had no idea what they were talking about, but she was inches from his ear.” There’s also a picture of him and her with his arm around her. Yet Cain says he doesn’t know who she is? I have a problem here too.
http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/sharon-bialek-herman-cain-accuser-bialek-hugged-cain-at-tea-party-event-schaumburg-renaissance-hotel-and-convention-center/
Ok, I didnt mean literal shame. But it is difficult even for us conservatives not to be drawn in to the mainstream frame of “if he did grope, you must not vote.”
That is not true.
If someone chooses not to vote for Cain because he might have been improper, they are casting their vote by inaction for a man whose past sexual stories include murder to cover up gay affairs. In plural. Two gay men from his church murdered as he campaigned in 08.
There are no choir boys running. Maybe mitt is one, but he won’t beat Obama.
Let’s look at the charges one by one:
1) she named a specific night, in the late 1990’s,
WHAT WAS THE DATE AND APPROXIMATE TIME? If you don’t know then, she was not specific enough.
2) According to her, Cain upgraded her to a hotel suite,
NAME THE HOTEL... What was its name? If you don’t know then, she was not specific enough.
And the hotel has a name, we can sure look at the hotel logs from the time she said her room was upgraded. Lets’ see the evidence.
3) had some drinks with her,
What was the name of the restaurant? If you don’t know she was not specific enough.
Did Cain use his credit card to pay for the dinner? Surely we have records from the credit card firm. Let’s see it.
4) took her to the national headquarters in a car, parked down the street, and then reached under her skirt and pushed her heard down towards his crouch. When she told him to stop, she says he said, “You want a job don’t you?” According to her, when she continued to resist, he then drove her back.
This is where the script gets suspicious. We are led to believe that Cain is so dumb that he can’t even wait to make a move on her back in the hotel room ( whatever the name is ) and he had to do it in a CAR where they can be possibly SEEN by random passersby or even police...
And she said he forced her head into his crotch ( he is on the driver’s seat remember? ), and then instead of quickly getting the hell out of the car after it happens ( like most women would do if they experience an assault), she asks him to DRIVE her back to the hotel?
Sorry, the story does not compute. As scripts go, it is not even credible.
Let’s put it this way, WE OUGHT TO BE SELECTING THE MOST QUALIFIED CANDIDATE. PERIOD.
we should not let a “He said, she said” scenario ( especially one with little evidence ) distract us from voting for the right person.
I voted for Bush over Kerry, NOT because of Kerry’s alleged lie about his combat service in Vietnam, but because he is the worse of the two candidates.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.