At 12/8/11 09:26 AM, Korriken wrote:
i suppose yellow journalism is still journalism.. and the norm these days.
To be honest, I didn't see a massive ton of yellow journalism here. At least not from the outlets I saw, they simply reported the facts as they came out. Inference of guilt, innocence, what have you has been applied elsewhere. But it's not like I followed this intently.
so sweet, near election time I think i might claim that Michelle Obama touched me as a child. who needs proof?
Point sailed right over your head...when you sue someone, or accuse them of criminal actions, it's customary to wait until you get into the actual court room to start presenting proof, arguments, etc. Not to run off to the nearest newspaper or TV camera and say "here's all my evidence and what my case is based on, blah blah blah". I'm hard pressed to think of a single time ANYONE has EVER done what you seem to want these women to do.
well, let's see. Karen Kraushaar works for the obama administration as communications director at the Inspector General's Office of the Treasury Department. # 2 and 3 who didn't share their identity, which of course makes proving/disproving their allegations impossible... so we can't say for certain.
Affiliation or lack thereof with the Obama Administartion is not a qualifier for identifying whether or not the allegations have merit. Come on, you're much smarter then your arguments are making you sound right now.
Bialek... it would seem most likely she jumped on the bandwagon looking for money, given her past.
Very possible. I guess we'll find out when and if the cases go to trial.
I find it mildly amusing that the news media didn't come out and say, "Anthony Wiener is full of shit, we all know its his crotch, he needs to just admit it!" when he said "I can't say its not me." instead, they report on how the Dems say its a non issue and that he is confusing the media by not admitting nor denying it.
I am failing to see how the Anthony Weiner case has anything to do with the validity of the women's claims, and the false assertion you (Korriken) posited, which is what I was specifically talking about. That you made some assertions that are demonstrably false...and you non-sequitor to the media again? If you've got no actual reply to the point I'm making, just don't reply.
and yet, when these people made their accusations, the media ran with it and began beating Cain over the head with it.
The Weiner case and other sex based scandals are covered just as intently. Stop acting like it's a Republican witch hunt and the media never brought down a Dem or placed such scrutiny on him it brought him down. Weiner only admitted wrong doing because he was so scrutinized and couldn't lie well enough on his feet and had been so prodigious in said wrong doing (which with the exception of the allegation he sent pics to a minor, is waaaaay more benign then what Herman Cain is being accused of).
or maybe they're full of shit, or worse, don't exist. I don't give much credibility to a person who makes an accusation and refuses to step forward.
Sounds like a personal problem that has nothing to do with the facts in the case. Like I say, until it goes to trial, or gets settled some other way, we're really just spit balling with the scant facts we have.
justice? what 3rd world country is Cain running in that he can be convicted without facing his accuser?
Uh, has the case gone to trial yet? Has a judge convicted him of anything? Just because their names aren't splashed around in public doesn't mean won't face them in court...this is common sense basic stuff now. Let's leave the ridiculous hyperbole at the door.
so simple... so simple.... question is. is it the truth?
That is indeed the question. Call me old fashioned, but I'm willing to wait for the trial before I make a firm decision one way or the other.
should we assume these women are being completely honest? I should think not.
Why? See, I don't understand why we automatically assume they all are lying unless it's because we have some kind of bias towards Herman Cain.
We don't know why exactly these women came forward, and they won't say, and yet people still take them at their word.
All I'm saying is where there's smoke there's usually fire. But I also readily acknowledge that with scant facts and evidence to go by, it's merely a suspicion on my part.
and to be clear, Cain handled the mess in a terrible fashion. Suppose he isn't used to the concept of damage control.
Guess that's what happens when unqualified novices with no political experience try to run for President :)
Had they come forward when he first announced his campaign and sunk him from the beginning I wouldn't have batted an eye. I wonder though, had a bunch of women come up and began accusing Obama once he was looking to be the frontrunner if the media would have handled it in the same way. Given the way the media gushed all over Obama, they would have probably had the women exposed and every dirty detail of their life put out for the world to see in order to discredit them.
So once again it's back to the media is unfair to Republicans...man I am so so tired of this line...there's bias everywhere. FOX News is Republicans R Us, MSNBC is the Democratic equivalent. Both sides have major network spin factories. That isn't news, and it isn't super relevant here, let's move on from this tedious shit already.
one phone call is all it'd take. but why not make the call? I wonder...
Well maybe if you did a little research into the subject instead of assuming that anything that doesn't make sense to you is automatically nefarious...you might wonder less.
those are also children, not adults.
Those are, but adult women don't always report rape, harassment, or assault either. I'm sure I could get some stats if it'd help you.
I kind of skipped the rest because it's either us agreeing, or seemed I'd just repeat stuff I already said. If I cut something you really think I should respond to though, lemme know.