G'bye!

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'll play it. If Cain was a white liberal, this isn't as big a story. The major networks sat on the John Edwards story for so long, they waited for the National Inquirer to break the news.

The media sat on the story because there was nobody on record to report about for some time. With Cain they started coming out very quickly, and the fact that the allegations were initially about harassment is much more damning than an affair. Once the Edwards story turned into a cover up the media had no problem finishing him off.

There are no lengths that liberals will not go to, in order to destroy women and blacks who have the temerity ro be conservative. They sure as hell did it to Clarence Thomas, they did it to Palin, and they did it to Cain. Let's see what they do to Marco Rubio, should he be the VP pick, and he better be...

no lengths

You forgot the murder of the unborn, it would really finish the paragraph off...

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The media sat on the story because there was nobody on record to report about for some time. With Cain they started coming out very quickly, and the fact that the allegations were initially about harassment is much more damning than an affair. Once the Edwards story turned into a cover up the media had no problem finishing him off.



no lengths

You forgot the murder of the unborn, it would really finish the paragraph off...

-spence

"The media sat on the story because there was nobody on record to report about for some time."

Spence, the first several reports regarding Cain, were based on anonymous sources. The fact that none would go on the record, didn't stop the media from jumping on the bandwagon. Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

"The media sat on the story because there was nobody on record to report about for some time."

I play that card when it's relevant. Not when it has no bearing.

Spence, I'm STILL waiting for you to explain why it's bad for America when "corporations" buy political influence, but it's OK when public unions do it?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, the first several reports regarding Cain, were based on anonymous sources. The fact that none would go on the record, didn't stop the media from jumping on the bandwagon. Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Or it was because the first two accusers had had a legal settlement that prevented them from going on the record. Settlement, to me, implies that Cain did something inappropriate. you may read it as he just did it to not deal with them. either way, did they think it wouldn't come out that he had had these settlements?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I play that card when it's relevant. Not when it has no bearing. "The media sat on the story because there was nobody on record to report about for some time."

So was Fox News in on the Edwards cover-up then?

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Settlement, to me, implies that Cain did something inappropriate. you may read it as he just did it to not deal with them. either way, did they think it wouldn't come out that he had had these settlements?

Good point, the fact of a legal settlement does replace the need for someone to come forward in person.

I don't agree though that the fact there was a settlement implies he did anything inappropriate. A large corporation is always going to have many suits of various credibility. A corporate executive is a prime target and often it's just easier and cheaper to settle.

That being said, the settlements along with what looks to be a long affair does seem to make the overall character story pretty damning.

So was Fox News in on the Edwards cover-up then?

No, Fox having a heavy conservative bias isn't technically part of the media.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Or it was because the first two accusers had had a legal settlement that prevented them from going on the record. Settlement, to me, implies that Cain did something inappropriate. you may read it as he just did it to not deal with them. either way, did they think it wouldn't come out that he had had these settlements?




So was Fox News in on the Edwards cover-up then?

"So was Fox News in on the Edwards cover-up then?"

Funny you mention that. I watched the O'Reilly factor the night that story broke. O'Reilly mentioned that there was a story swirling around, but that he wasn;t going to mention it, because nothing was confirmed, and he didn't think it was right to speculate. How do you like them apples?

I'd guess there's something to the Cain accusations. I just don't like the obvious hypocrisy (obvious to anyone who sees clearly, that is).

[RIROCKHOUND]

I see.
If O'Reilly says it, it's good journalism, if MSNBC does it, it's a conspiracy.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, the first several reports regarding Cain, were based on anonymous sources. The fact that none would go on the record, didn't stop the media from jumping on the bandwagon. Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

As I said, sexual harassment is much more newsworthy than an affair.

You're just going to have to get over the idea that this is all a liberal conspiracy to knock down a brother

Spence, I'm STILL waiting for you to explain why it's bad for America when "corporations" buy political influence, but it's OK when public unions do it?

When did I ever make that assertion?

-spence

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by spence

When did I ever make that assertion?
-spence

B/C you appear to support the liberal, or at least non-R agenda, so you are required to be pro-killing babies and pro-union

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

B/C you appear to support the liberal, or at least non-R agenda, so you are required to be pro-killing babies and pro-union

Rockhound, as you can see from my post above, I didn't "assume" that Spence made that assertion. He explicitly made that assertion, and then when I used it (quite cleverly in my opinion) to back him into an inescapable corner, he denied it.

You see, Rockhound, there is no sane way a person can say it's wrong for corporations to buy influence, but to also support the right for public labor unions to buy influence. That hypocrisy is so obvious, a child can see it. Yet that's precisely waht most liberals do. In this case, Spence decried the unfairness of corporations buying influence. When I asked him why he's OK with labor unions doing the same thing, he denied ever saying it in the first place.

That's the liberal agenda. Impossible to defend from a common sense standpoint, so all Spence can do, is deny saying something that he obviously just said. And here's what I don't get. If his position is SO WEAK that he cannot defend it, if his position is so inane that all he can do is deny what he just said, then why does he believe what he believes?

That's the key question.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You see, Rockhound, there is no sane way a person can say it's wrong for corporations to buy influence, but to also support the right for public labor unions to buy influence. That hypocrisy is so obvious, a child can see it. Yet that's precisely waht most liberals do.

MOST Liberals.
I want money out from both sides.
End the pull from both sides. End the Super PAC's etc... back to a set amount of funding and thats it

You ignored my comment about O'Reilly's I see...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

MOST Liberals.
I want money out from both sides.
End the pull from both sides. End the Super PAC's etc... back to a set amount of funding and thats it

You ignored my comment about O'Reilly's I see...

"You ignored my comment about O'Reilly's I see"

Thanks for pointing that out, because your comment was 100% wrong. You shjould have been glad I ignored it. Here is what you said...

"If O'Reilly says it, it's good journalism, if MSNBC does it, it's a conspiracy"

You're comparing what O'Reilly did, with what MSNBC did. But what they did was the OPPOSITE of one another.

O'Reilly refused to comment on the Edwards story when it was just unfounded accusations. MSNBC was quite happy to run stories about Cain before anything was confirmed.

Those 2 approaches are QUITE different, and very few people would say O'Reilly was on the wrong side, but I guess you would?

Good day.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

When did I ever make that assertion?

-spence

From the "Occupy" post...

#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^& said this:

"What exactly are they protesting again?"

And here was your reply...

"How corporate influence over our political process is rigging the game in favor of the wealthy."

Spence, do yourself a favor. When dealing with me, assume you're not dealing with a moron, OK?

Now, back to my question. Clearly, you think that when "corporations" make political contributions, it rigs the system in their favor. And I'm sure you're right about that.

Here is my question. Spence, why aren't you JUST AS CONCERNED that when public unions make political capmaign contributions, that they are likewise rigging the system in their favor?

GOOD LUCK.

And Spence, what unions do is worse for everyone else, and here's why. For the most part (there are some exceptions), corporations can buy all the influence they want, but in the end, they can't force me to buy their product. But when public labor unions buy influence, that gets forced on all of us in the form of property taxes, which I have no choice but to pay.

When companies buy influence, it has nowhere near the detrimental impact on folks, as when public labor unions run amuck.

Have fun responding to that.