Posted on 11/14/2011 10:23:05 AM PST by struggle
Look at the LARGEST (by an outlandish amount) creditor listed: Zuckerman Honickman. They are a packaging provider, one of many listed. Yet, they owe them nearly 50 times more than the others as a result of litigation (according to the BK).
Bumping because I think THIS IS A GREAT THREAD!
AND, they all happen to come from Chicago.
Obviously, that is not the case. If it was, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
..why should some unknown American's word not be treated the same way?
That's just it. They're not being treated the same way. The way this whole thing has been laid out, Cain is guilty (or tainted) until he proves his innocence, which of course is impossible. It's a no-win situation for Cain. Throughout the remainder of his working life, any time he seeks a high position, the press will be there to remind us that someone said that they know of some unnamed person who got a settlement from the NRA, and even though Herman Cain's name cannot be found anywhere on that settlement, he is guilty of a sexual harassment accusation that doesn't even exist.
Think about it. There is no definitive sexual harassment accusation anywhere on the table. None. Zip. Nada. Yet somehow we should reconsider our support for him?
The problem here is that we don't even have anyone coming forth and saying that Cain stole the $100. Instead, we get "The NRA paid out a settlement. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be reached is that Cain stole the $100." And there's no one there to ask, "When did this happen" or "What proof is there that 'you' actually had $100", because there is no 'you'. There is no one to ask these questions because NO ONE has come forward offering that accusation. No one.
That's because their character was being scrutinized, even as they themselves were criticizing Cain.
It's not like the MSM where they have a narrative and report that no matter what the facts are; the FReepers were not pre-emptively dismissing his remarks, except to note (correctly) that they rated as hearsay, and would be inadmissible in court. But also that as hearsay, rather than a participant/eyewitness, the character of the person speaking, and their motivation, becomes germane to the discussion.
Cheers!
This is straight out of Axlerod's playbook. Let's hope it doesn't work this time around.
How do you prove you lost money gambling? More importantly how does someone prove you still have it if you say you lost it gambling and you stash it somewhere it can't be found? Not saying he did that, just that it's possible and far more likely than losing it just for spite.
I agree wholeheartedly. It sickens me to see Freepers fighting amongst each other blaming other Republican camps for this attack which is obviously coming from the Obama campaign.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/2807578/posts
It looks like the things that were being said about him are true.
You could say that is not fair to Victor Zuckerman.
Or, you could say that is fair for Herman Cain.
It all depends on you point of view I guess.
*
Not a very active Dr. is he?
Here is another one based on 5 replies. http://www.vitals.com/doctors/Dr_Victor_Zuckerman. There he gets 1.5 stars out of 4. Not a sterling performance. In any case, you believe what you want to believe. Accusations are easy. I believe Cain.
OMG! 21st Century version of MONKEY GLANDS & GOAT GLANDS! ROTFLMAO!
The Russian-born Dr. Serge Voronoff of France was the initiator of the "monkey glands" fad of the 1920s and 1930s, persuading dozens of men that pieces of monkey testicle implanted in their own testes would give them increased potency. He came up with this idea after noting that eunuchs aged faster than the non-castrated. Voroneff wrote a book about his process in 1926, which spread the idea around the world. A Dr. Leighton Jones was famous for the same procedure in Australia, and cases of this transplant being done are known in the U.S., Italy, Russia, Brazil, Chile, and India. It was sometimes difficult to procure the monkeys needed, and monkey houses to raise the animals sprouted near Voroneff's location. (Since the vivisection of animals was illegal in England, human testes were substituted.) ...
On a similar note, John Romulus Brinkley (1885-1941) was well-known in the U.S. for using goat glands for the same supposed restoration of male fertility and virility; he started performing these implantations in 1918. Brinkley was licensed as a doctor in Kansas; the license was revoked in 1930, when he had already become rich from his practice, so he moved to Texas, just across the border from a Mexican radio transmitter on which he advertised his services prescribing supposed drug remedies. [excerpt] monkey glands
I guess he can alsways tell them, if (when) the hormone treatments don't work, that their aging must not have been "premature"!
Is this his “proof” of the supposed situation?
“I also recall Sharon telling me that at these events she was seated next to him, both at a luncheon where he was a keynote speaker and at a dinner at Marche restaurant in Chicago”
I suspect someone sitting next to a keynote speaker would be a lot more likely to remember it than the speaker would. This gets more and more pathetic as time goes on. I think it is time for Allred and Bialek to crawl back under their rocks.
Sorta like the personal attacks against Cain without evaluation or proof. I'm sure you're quite upset about that as well, right?
Marty, there is disagreement, and then there are unprovoked attacks. What you engaged in on this thread was unprovoked attacks.
You are acting like a 13-year old hurling taunts on the playground. And I'm beginning to suspect that's exactly what you are: at least emotionally, if not chronologically.
I was hoping that you might realize that you are achieving nothing but escalating the level of vitriol. If I was writing a playbook for DNC operatives, you would be exhibit 1.... "Marty is demonstrating exactly how to tear apart the Republicans with infighting so they don't have a chance in the general election".
Chasaway has has acknowledged the problem in post 276 and apologized -- although his contribution was minimal. Are you going to be adult enough to join him, or are you going to continue to act out like a spoiled child?
There’s also a Victor Zuckerman, who is an attorney. Be sure that you don’t get those confused.
My list of candidates is down to 2, in this order:
Gingrich
Cain
Perry may have pulled a come-back in Texas, but he’s not ready for the big leagues.
He just doesn’t have what it takes to survive a national campaign.
He’ll probably stay in for at least a while longer because of his cash but he’s no Ron Paul. When he finishes scoreless after Iowa, NH, Florida and SC he will drop out.
That's not his problem.
Fully 69% of Americans in the latest IBD/TIPP poll say they don’t favor states giving in-state college tuition to ILLEGAL aliens while charging higher fees for legal, out-of-state residents. Just 22% support such a policy.
73% of Republicans are opposed vs. 20% in favor.
Independents have even stronger views: 74%-15%. Even Democrats are strongly opposed 58%-32%.
In fact, a majority of every major subgroup opposes giving ILLEGAL aliens in-state tuition rates — men and women, rich and poor, urban and rural. Hispanics, who have more conflicted views over illegal immigration than is commonly known, are opposed, 54%-28%. Blacks, who often see ILLEGAL aliens as rivals for jobs, are the most opposed, 80%-12%.
Perry's campaign is in the gutter because of his support for ILLEGAL aliens. It's clear he is not going to change his mind on the issue and neither are those 'heartless' conservative voters.
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.