You are right. You can claim that.
I’ll ask, when did this happen? I’ll ask you to prove that you actually had $100. I’ll ask you to show some evidence that it happened. I’ll ask you to go through some type of “under oath” testimony of what you say I did.
What I won’t do, while you’re saying all of that, is claim you’re a sorry SOB, that has slept around, and any witnesses you have are sorry SOBs, and that anything you say is lie because you’re a sorry SOB and all of your witnesses are SOBs.
I may say it didn’t happen and try to show how I know that. But I’m not going to try to destroy you personally over it. And I don’t know that even if I did that it would accrue to my benefit
Someone once said, “Don’t explain yourself. Your friends don’t need it and your enemies won’t believe it.”
I think that’s true here.
But one other thing: With all of the accusations and character assassination of the accusers, how much introspection have you seen from Cain supporters as to whether any of this...ANY of this might be true?
Or have YOU seen a preponderance of attacking the “messenger”?
I’ve been accused falsely (and actually lost lawsuits) in the past. So, I’m sympathetic.
But my problem is the very personal, very aggressive attack on the “messengers”...even before they began speaking.
Are you okay with that kind of stuff?
Why are you asking ME to prove it when you have not asked HER to prove anything?
Why are you asking ME for evidence when you have not asked HER for evidence? We have both just made accusations with words.
You have asked ME to go under oath but you have not asked HER to go under oath. Why?
And we are just role playing in a forum - if I am believed or not may just prove my or your point. But, if my accusation had potential impact on your career, you may not be playing so nice.
And to be fair, there was no attack "before they even began speaking". The accusers brought this topic to the forefront by speaking first. The accusers made the first attempt at character assassination. Cain has responded in defense.
If the accusers wanted justice, they could and should have have pursued it in the legal system. Don't forget, Clinton's accusers did just that. This is about attacking a person the forum of biased media.
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!