.
.
.
Herman Cain is not facing a “high-tech lynching” on sexual harassment charges due to his race, no matter how Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are trying to spin it — but he is facing something along those lines for which I’d prefer to use a less loaded and racial metaphor.
He’s facing being stabbed in the back by forces within the Republican Party because he’s showing signs of being able to win the Republican nomination and they don’t like it. It could be coming from Romney partisans or from non-Romney rivals who envy his leading the pack — or both.
Could he have committed acts of sexual harassment? Absolutely — though even that question, as I’ll address, is not as straightforward as it seems.
Whether he did or he didn’t, is it possible that the case would have been taken out of his hands quickly and that he’d know very little about its facts and its resolution? Again: it’s absolutely possible — even fairly likely.
I don’t blame laypeople for not knowing how sexual harassment claims at the sort of organization where Cain worked are addressed. I do blame the media for not finding out — and I do think that people should not be so quick to presume that “where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” Cain, like so many challengers to Mitt Romney this year, is being taken down by a scandal — but what we know (as opposed to what we merely suspect) is not scandalous. So rather than do Mitt Romney’s (or Rick Perry’s, or Newt Gingr — nahh!) work for him, let’s take a look at what we know about the Cain sexual harassment charges.
First, we know that they happened in the late 90s, when Cain was heading the National Restaurant Association, a trade group. That’s a long time ago — which does not mean it’s irrelevant, but means that his and others’ memories of it would not necessarily be sharp.
Second, we know that apparently two women raised sexual harassment complaints against Cain. I have not been following these events closely enough to know whether they were raised in a lawsuit; most likely, they would have initially been raised in a “demand letter” from an attorney, requesting discussion of the situation.
Third, we know that apparently the behavior stemmed from Cain’s behavior towards the women in a social setting, when his actions made them uncomfortable on account of sex. He could have been coming on to them “for real” in ways that were merely offensive or that actually involved a quid pro quo (offers of rewards, threats of punishment, or some combination); he could have been “playing around” with sexual innuendo; he could have been talking about gender issues (related to sexuality or to women’s role in the workplace) in ways that the women found demeaning. All of these and more would fall into the general category of “sexual harassment.”
Fourth, we know that the matter was quickly taken out of his hands and handled by others.
Some critical issues:
How do we know if it was sexual harassment?
I’m familiar mostly with California law, but I think that this is probably generally true: neither the subjective opinion of Cain that his actions didn’t constitute sexual harassment nor the women’s opinion that it did — or their honest reaction of feeling uncomfortable or threatened — are definitive. We look to what a reasonable person — or a reasonable women, and the difference between those two approaches is often critical — would experience in that situation. In other words, is it possible that Cain believed and still believes that he did not engage in sexual harassment while the women involved believed and still believe that he did. Whether it would be found to be sexual harassment in court depends on how the individual fact-finder lines up the facts with the legal definitions; even given the same facts, results can vary widely.
To compare this to the Clarence Thomas situation, it would be hard to argue that a reasonable man should not have known not to talk about pubic hairs on Coke cans and one’s enjoyment of Long Dong Silver and other porno stars with a female subordinate — and, a quarter century later — probably not with anyone unless one was very comfortable predicting that one would not be sued. I don’t know exactly what Cain is accused of having done — maybe it was in the same league — but it’s entirely possible that an honest sexual harassment complaint could have been filed even if it was much less egregious.
Is it unusual that he would know little about the case and its terms?
Depending on how the case proceeded, it could certainly happen. Cain was not at the organization for long; the organization would have been more concerned about protecting its long-term interests than in making sure that Cain had no stain on his record that might come up more than a decade later in a run for the Presidency.
Here’s how he describes it in his interview last night with Greta Van Sustern; I’ll comment as it proceeds.
CAIN: My general counsel came to my office and told me that she had made a claim. And I said, OK, what do we need to do?
VAN SUSTEREN: What did she — what did he say she claimed you did?
CAIN: He just used the term sexual harassment claim.
VAN SUSTEREN: You didn’t say what — like what?
CAIN: No.
VAN SUSTEREN: You didn’t say, like, Whoa, what did she say I did?
CAIN: No, I didn’t. I just said, What do you mean sexual harassment? She’s made some claims of sexual harassment.Now, he may have told me what incidents that she might have included in the claim, but all day today, as I’ve been getting beat up, I’ve been trying to recall what some of those things were and haven’t been able to recall a lot of them because that’s why they got dismissed. It was no basis because it was simple stuff.
None of this is surprising or sinister. The General Counsel tells Cain that there is a claim and may delicately probe to see if there was any obvious basis for it. Cain does not think (or professes not to think) that he’s guilty, so he says “take care of it.” He could be lying about not remembering the details, but there’s no reason to conclude that he is. Whatever the events leading to the charges were, they were probably a lot more significant to the victim than to Cain.
VAN SUSTEREN: Do you remember any of it?
CAIN: … I recused myself and it was handled by two of my staff members. And they were — one of them is an officer level. So once it was resolved, I wasn’t involved, don’t recall what, quote, unquote, “settlement,” termination — I don’t know what it was.
[I’m omitting his discussion of the gesture that he thinks was part of the complaint; I would not trust his memory of this anyway.]
VAN SUSTEREN: … [O]nce the general counsel came to you and told you there was a claim, what was the next thing you did?
CAIN: I recused myself and told Peter…
VAN SUSTEREN: The general counsel.
CAIN: … the general counselor — to get together with Mary — I’m losing the last names because we’re talking 12 years ago — that for them to basically address it. I do recall that the lady making the charge had gotten an attorney. And I recused myself because I was the CEO and the charge was being leveled against me.
Peter kept me updated on the progress of this whole situation, and the thing that I remember most is when one day he came in and said, First, the charges were found baseless.
VAN SUSTEREN: By whom?
CAIN: I don’t recall by whom the charges were found baseless. I don’t know whether it was attorneys getting together. I don’t even remember if we had outside attorneys. I was busy traveling. I was busy running the association, so I wasn’t involved in a lot of the details about this. So I really can’t tell you how they were determined as being baseless.
I’m not convinced that the General Counsel concluded that the charges were “baseless” — i.e., that they were of a sort that no reasonable jury could find constituted sexual harassment. It does seem likely that, as Cain goes on to say, the GC concluded that, lacking witnesses, she had a weak case. In that case, would the GC /tell/ Cain, in reporting a settlement, that he had concluded that the charges were baseless? That would not surprise me at all. Why have that conversation with your boss, probably in the process of advising him to be more careful with female subordinates, if it wasn’t necessary? “Baseless,” “little chance of succeeding” — what’s the difference?
VAN SUSTEREN: Were you ever deposed or questioned by her lawyer?
CAIN: No, I was not.
VAN SUSTEREN: Was she, to your knowledge, ever deposed or questioned by your general counsel or anybody in connection with your organization?
CAIN: I don’t know for sure. I can only — I don’t want to presume. I do not know for sure.
VAN SUSTEREN: OK. Between the time that you were told that there was an accusation against you and the time that it was settled, how much time was that about?
CAIN: It was about six to nine months.
VAN SUSTEREN: And during that time, did anyone talk to you at all about it?
CAIN: No, other than my general counsel. That was the only person that talked to me about it.
What this tells me is that the case probably didn’t go far into the “discovery” process (of depositions and such), if indeed a formal complaint was filed at all.
Conservatives and defense attorneys like to talk about “nuisance suits,” which they claim to be willing to settle because it costs less money than fighting them. (In many of our experiences, we may treat some parking tickets like that: we think that we were in the right, but it’s not worth the fight.) I expect that the GC would have described this to plaintiff’s counsel as a “nuisance suit,” a term that the attorney representing the woman would have resisted.
In truth, a true “nuisance suit” is not that likely to lead to a settlement in most cases. What you have here, instead, is a “readily settled” suit — one where the stakes (if the case is settled) are relatively low and the possibility of a bad result for the employer may be relatively low, but the price of such a bad result, if it happened, could be high.
In such a case, “getting at the truth” — the advertised specialty of the legal system — is not seen as that critical by either side. What’s of interest is that the potential plaintiff (with a share going to her attorney) gets paid reasonable compensation for her losses. She might get the equivalent of several months of severance; she may get a neutral or tersely positive recommendation and perhaps a pledge not to contest her unemployment claim. And … it would be settled. Cain gets some useful feedback that he should monitor himself a bit better — or, if he did do something truly horrific, that he couldn’t count on getting away with it — and everyone moves on.
If this is what happened, Cain would not likely know how much the settlement was for, nor its specific terms. Most likely, they just wouldn’t matter that much to anyone — at least until some rival campaign found out about it and tried to make a big deal over it.
VAN SUSTEREN: OK. So the six to nine months later, the general counsel comes in and says, It’s settled?
CAIN: Yes.
VAN SUSTEREN: OK. Did you ask, like, Well, what did you do?
CAIN: I did.
VAN SUSTEREN: And what were you told?
CAIN: He said this started out where she and her lawyer were demanding a huge financial settlement.
VAN SUSTEREN: How much?
CAIN: I don’t remember the number.
VAN SUSTEREN: Thousands or hundreds of thousands?
CAIN: Thousands, but I don’t remember a number. But then he said, The good news is because there was no basis for this, we ended up settling for what would have been a termination settlement, quite frankly, in terms of…
VAN SUSTEREN: And what would that be, about?
CAIN: Maybe three months’ salary or something like that, just vaguely trying to recall it.
VAN SUSTEREN: Is that a normal…
CAIN: Yes.
VAN SUSTEREN: When you leave the restaurant association, you get three months?
CAIN: Depending on how long you have been there. It’s based upon how many years you’ve been there. So I don’t remember the — it might have been two months. I don’t remember the exact number, but I do remember my general counsel saying, The good news is, we didn’t pay all of this money that was being demanded. It really worked out to what we probably would have been able to give her if she had resigned because for cause.
VAN SUSTEREN: Why didn’t she get that anyway? I mean, why didn’t she get the settlement and the resignation or severance?
CAIN: She would have gotten the severance, based upon what I recall the conditions under which she left. So we — she ended up getting what she would have gotten if she had just said, I want to leave and I would like to negotiate a severance agreement. That’s probably as far as we would have gone. But I can’t guarantee that it was two months or three months. I just know it was well within the range of what we would do if we had an amicable separation between the association and an employee.
VAN SUSTEREN: Any idea about what she was making a year?
CAIN: Can’t recall. Probably — probably $40,000 to $50,000 a year, maybe.
This is often how it goes. The demand letter comes in saying that this will cost a huge amount of money; if things look likely to become an expensive stalemate, the person complaining gets a settlement styled as “severance” that may be what they would have gotten anyway had they been laid off. (Maybe a little more, if Cain’s actions seemed pretty skeevy without seeming extreme or a quid pro quo; Cain would not necessarily be informed, though, if this is what happened.
Is it surprising that Cain got accused of sexual harassment? It happens sometimes. Sometimes, undoubtedly, it can be a trumped-up charge; sometimes, I know from experience, it can be an extremely serious one. Often it is in the expansive gray area between what a male supervisor thinks is acceptable and a female subordinate thinks is not; a wise organization works to get people on the same page before these conflicts happen and has means of resolving them more amicably than this.
It is possible that Cain, in his relations with female subordinate, is a truly reckless and rotten human being. That is clearly what some Republicans — Democrats are not trying to get this guy out of the race right now — want people to believe. But it is also possible that he is not. Right now, his critics seem to be relying on the unfamiliarity of even the generally well-informed public with how sexual harassment claims are actually handled — a reality where what Cain has been saying sounds quite plausible, except for a few immaterial contradictions, whether or not it is true.
I don’t like Herman Cain’s politics, but I don’t like his being convicted unfairly in the court of public opinion for what seems like nothing that sinister or unusual. There’s a term for that which explains why, while I hate to defend Herman Cain, I have felt the need to do so.
That term is: “Rovian.”
(Author’s Note: Cross-post with edits from Daily Kos)
Do you know if confidentiality agreements are typical in these kind of settlements and if Cain has violated that by denying the allegations?
I also just heard that one of the women involved wants to be released from the confidentiality agreement, who would be responsible for allowing that or not?
Whoops, just found this;
From The Washington Post
One of the women who accused GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain of sexual harassment wants to tell her side of the story but is barred by a confidentiality agreement, her attorney in Washington said Tuesday.
Lawyer Joel P. Bennett called on the National Restaurant Association, where the woman and Cain worked in the late 1990s, to release the woman from her written promise not to talk about the allegations or disparage the trade group.
“It is just frustrating that Herman Cain is going around bad-mouthing the two complainants, and my client is blocked by a confidentiality agreement,” Bennett said. “The National Restaurant Association ought to release them and allow them to respond. ”
Confidentiality clauses in such agreements are typical; I presume that they were back in 1999 (or whenever) I don’t know if Cain would be bound by the agreements; my guess is that he was not a signatory and had no separate agreement with the NR Assoc. requiring him to stay quiet forever. The NR Assoc. is supposed to use its influence to keep him to honor such a clause — but this far after events, and with him long a non-employee, they have minimal control. I think that their lawyer is right: they should release the witnesses to comment on at least a minimal scope of events, to rebut Cain’s derogatory statements.
Going after them personally will probably prove to have been Cain’s “bridge too far.” That was a stupid move on his part. Somewhere, Mitt Romney is smiling.
It could be Cain throwing himself under the bus.
Now he’s able to take on the role of a victim of the Liberals and the liberal press, who are unfairly convicting him in the court of public opinion. This will most likely give him a bump from the Tea Party types.
He might have been anticipating Romney et al getting ready to trash him, and is thinking of a third party run.
Now he also has the support of drug addled Rush ( the apparent leader of the Republican Party ), and his loyal mignon Ann Coulter, which is something new.
That would be some out of the box thinking.
I could see Bachmann running third party, but not Cain. The Kochs want a win.
(Ann Coulter is a minion, but I understand the confusion, as she is a filet.)
I was trying to be a bad speller on purpose to imitate the Great Juan’s definition of genius.
Wud you think that ?
I think Cain sees himself as the next Perry,and is getting desperate.
I also think that maybe he’s pulling a Palin and isn’t really running at all, just trying to increase his speaking fee price. He is a lot better known than he was a few months ago.
Even with your bad spelling, stupid can’t imitate natural intelligence.
You’re a snob Demawhack, and you are not a very bright snob!
Wow, whats the odds of that?
You just got called names by the Mitey Quinn! Rite of passage!
No, he just got a slap down?
And its just an observation that liberal are none too bright, as seen by the whole Occupy movement…. Wow, our they ever none too bright!!!!!
Your over use of the exclamation point really put me in my place.
I think that they call that “typing Turrets.”
Michelle Quinn bows to no rules of written language! Free-dumb!!!!
I thought exclamation points conveyed passion, shouting out loud etc….Well one was not good enough because MAN OUR THEY NONE TOO BRIGHT!!!!!!!!!! :0)
Not typing turrets, just a lot of passion behind the words.
The reason why he is doing well is that conservative are voting for him and Rino’s, liberals and demorats are trying to get rid of him because they either want another Rino or they can’t have an actual American black man getting a republican vote based on the fact that he is intelligent and has made it on his own…..Not good to have a smart black man proving that blacks not doing well, may just be the result of the them voting for the party of losers and the fact they have followed their victimization ideology.
Not a kenyan black, but an American black man; oh, no, that can’t happen!
Liberals are racist, as racist as Margaret Sanger and as racist as most minorities because they are liberal!
The reason he is doing well is because there are no serious candidates. The Republican field reminds me of going to the circus and seeing the brightly painted car pull into the middle of the ring, and unloads an endless parade of clowns.
If you recall, not too long ago the leader of the pack was “the Donald.”
Now you’re betting the potato farm on a former lobbyist who worked hard at keeping the restaurant workers wage at the poverty level. How American.
Kenyan ? Come on, you”re smarter than that.
Yeap, and the Demorat field is made up the grim Obama, Maxine wanker and dopey Harry?
The only strings around the White House is the strings attaching the above idiots to the thug unions.
And yes, people are wanting a real conservative instead of dumbo’s like McCain, so they are giving everyone a chance.
No, the people are betting on a Math wizz, who brought large companies from the brink to success, instead of the idiot in the white house now, who has brought this country to its knees.
Kanyan? I am bringing up the fact that a REAL black American man, with slave ancestors and the son of a Poor black man and woman is now the front runner. YOU and your like can’t stand the fact that this man who is supposed to step in line with the rest of his race in this country and he does not. Liberals don’t like blacks getting too uppity do they?
And yes, I am smart, so is this amazing man and we share something in common…Liberals don’t like their women or their blacks getting too uppity! Not good for the whole liberal theme of blacks and women being victims!
“War is peace,” “ignorance is strength,” and “uppity is serving the powerful.”
My problems with Cain are his policies and his personality. And coming up with “9-9-9” takes away one’s “math whiz” credentials.
Don’t keep calling yourself smart; you sound like Fredo.
Dema — that part at the end, what made you say that?
He said it because he is a liberal and liberals see blacks as slaves to the demorat party, not free individuals with the intellect to know better!
On the contrary, blacks like anyone else are free to be craven and wrong. Cain is simply exercising this right.
Oh, you meant the very end, when he states “your smarter than that”.
Now, why the hell would he let her know he thinks she is smart? Just like why the hell would liberals support a conservative black man? RIGHT?
Well, I said that because ” Kenyan ” is such a tired old meme that has been over-analyzed to death, and nobody can give it a shred of validity. I thought MQ had enough sensibility to see that the argument had no legs.
My mistake. She appears to have more problems than a math book.
Us liberals do like smart, uppity women. Case in point….Elizabeth Warren. Oh she sees right through the scammers on Wall Street, and that scares the crap out of the Republicans who are beholden to their masters, the 1%ers. That’s why they would not approve her to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
And did you miss the fact that we elected a smart, constitutional law proffessor to the office of President that is black. Oh he was certainly black when he was going to Reverend Wright’s Church, maybe too black for most repubs.
Now you are the black party? You might want to check in with the deep south on that strategy.
Of course it has legs! This is what I think, I am quoting no one. Obama is not a true black American. He is the offspring of a well to do white and a kenyan man. He was brought up in a well to do house and well educated, thanks to his well to do whack job mother and her whack job parents.
The fact that a true black American who is the living and breathing ancestor of black slaves might become the next president is a threat to liberals and their idea that American blacks will never be voted for such a high office by conservatives. That goes completely against everything that they have been teaching blacks in this country; that being poor is because conservative whites oppress them but the truth is that liberals having been lying to them. Conservatives wants a leader to get rid of the idiot in the white house, not because he is black but because he is destroying this country, the fact that Mr. Cain has blood from a people who strived and overcame the worst human condition of slavery is just brilliant!
The fact that a true black American who is the living and breathing ancestor of black slaves…
Harsh, Quinn. Herman’s the “ANCESTOR” of slaves? You lot are plotting to enslave the blacks again?
“My mistake. She appears to have more problems than a math book.”
MQ says:
What sheep you liberals are; your liberal buddy slaps you down for slipping up and you retract your comments to appease your base! How week you are!
Actually, I was in a math club. I love math because I love the simple logic of it! I can only assume that you are not good at math?
Elizabeth Warren? lol The same woman who states that she set the ground work for the Occupiers? Yep, she a smart one!
If she is the Queen of the occupier crowd, I bet she is REAL SMART!
Sorry, I like Obamas personality, but I would never elect anyone who has his head so far up the unions a##. He might have got a paper degree in constitutional law, but he sure does not like it; he’s been trying to destroy the constitution the whole time he has been in the white house.
The guy can’t stand this country or its people and it’s obvious to me, cause my European family love him because he is Anti American. The fact that Europeans love Obama is not a good thing for this country. Bit of a bad sign!
The fact he went to a racist church is just a sign that he thinks like the racist who was preaching. Hey, maybe Michelle made him go! You know the same women who made fun of your flag ceremony at an 9/11 event. She is a piece of work!
Believe it or not my people were singing the same songs in the 60’s, and my family/ancestors has suffered as much under british rule as blacks have suffered. My father was shot once in the head and once in the heart because he was a catholic, they would not have cared he was black, just as long as he was a prod!
I have been to the South, there are good blacks and good white’s and then there are the idiots of both races, that just can’t move on, it’s the same in Northern Ireland, but it’s not race, its religion!
Of course I meant descendent….And I don’t think a man like Mr. Cain would be anyones slave. He did say something to the effect of, “Getting out of the demorats plantation”.
To MQ,
Actually I’m very good at math and always have been.
Religion is the basis for generations and centuries of conflict and most of what they preach is hypocritical. I was brought up Catholic, and think that they are one of the most guilty of causing conflict and war.
The deep south has a pervasive racism that no country would be proud of.
I think that Obama may have had it harder than some blacks because of his mixed race parents. The blacks didn’t trust him because he had a white mom, and the whites certainly didn’t like his black father. Children of mixed couples have unique challenges.
And don’t think that unions are always bad for the people. Here’s an example.
In California the nurses union fought long and hard to establish a patient to nurse ratio of 5 to 1. Before that the for profit hospitals would have that ratio at 10 or 12 to 1 resulting in substandard care for patients ( I’m sure that you understand the math here ). Like the people of the South, there are good union workers, and there are bad ones. Probably a higher percentage of the opportunists end up as union officials, just like our politicians. But that doesn’t mean that the system is devoid of benefits for the average person.
I don’t mind private unions, I have a problem with public unions. Yes, most unions are corrupt now in this country but public unions are breaking the back of this country.
Even the union whore brown is trying to amend the pensions of public workers because he know that it is unsustainable.
And yes, most religions are dip in blood and that is why i have a problem with religion. Right now I am not happy with the Catholic Church because they are becoming a left wing mess. Hence child abuse and convents, like Sister of St. Joseph with their own Social Justice centers. The Catholic Church is in a lot of trouble because they have allowed a liberal ideology to corrupt the church and its teachings!
Uh, it was clear that I want him to stay in the race, right, Mitey? I hope that he’s nominated. Love it.
You won’t love it, if he actually became the president. That would really piss you off!
He might not win, but I hope the person that does, will kick the Occupy white house couple out!
You’re right, I wouldn’t love him becoming the President. I also wouldn’t love being hit by a meteorite, which is even more unlikely. I’m not really worried about either, though.
*We haven’t even gotten to his Godfather Pizza days yet. Whoa, the Reverend Herm had some rap…didn’t he? “Yoah Baby……you be jus about the same size as my…….well you know….my wife’s? What’cha think about that now? How about a closer look see? Maybe we could have a cup together sometime? What? Sexual Arousenment? Why what’d you be thinkin then? What? Now you want dinner?” Of course we could be wrong about all of it. Just a slight misunderstanding with staff or such?
Men will be men, I would rather have a boss with a sense of humor, than idiot women who can take a bit of sexy humor.
If he did get a bit fresh, so what? He is a far cry from men like Clinton, Kennedy and even MLK. It was most likely a money scam and they might have had material to use, but not enough to have him fired ah?
And are you being a racist with the who slang thing? Is that your liberal side showing?
“If he did get a bit fresh, so what?”
Discuss.
Stephen Colbert has MQ’s back on this one;
“Cain is under fire over sexual harassment allegations during his time as head of the National Restaurant Association. Cain’s story has shifted over the past few days as new details have come to light. But Colbert knows who the real harassers are: women.
“They always take comments about their height as something sexual,” Colbert said. “Like, ‘Hey, let’s stand back-to-back to see who’s taller, except I’ll be facing you without any pants on.’ Everybody knows who’s really to blame for this controversy.”
Are those quotes, R&A, or hallucinations?
If you made them up — including “you be jus about the same” — ugh.
By the way, just to get it into Google — yes, that graphic really says “Yes, Weak Cain!”
I like politics Bohemian stile!…. Americans are primitive with this sex scandal crapola.
This is what will happen to you if you will badmouthing man’s wife.
I agree with the Exile again !
Twice in two days.
We are such sissies about sex in oh so many ways.
Is that the “Ghost Busters” logo in the background ?
Sexual harassment is no more “sex” than rape is “sex.”
[Sexual harassment is no more “sex” than rape is “sex.”]…….. Hmmmm
I guess that you have lot of sexual harassment with your wife to have more “sex”….. Huh?
I’m all prepared to be offended, Camarillo, but I can’t understand what you’re trying to say.
“I’m all prepared to be offended”……… Hmmmmm
I guess that is bequeathal.
As I said: I can’t understand what you’re trying to say. Hmmmmmm.
“Americans are primitive with this sex scandal crapola.”
“I agree with the Exile again !”
“We are such sissies about sex in oh so many ways.”
Don’t conflate someone’s private sex life with sexual harassment, the two are very different entities.
If you want to experience a sexual harassment then go to any major European city and take public transportation during the rush hour when bus or train is packed body on body.
If you are shorty like me a tall women may smother you with her “D” size in your face.
Or some MILF may rub her ass against your erected penis.
Bus drivers usually will intentionally slam on brakes so guys have chance to regain balance by holding on preferred female body part.
Just try it sometimes.
See, this is the sort of important information that we keep Stanislav around for. Thank you, comrade.
It’s a wonder you ever get off the bus at all, Stanislaw. Maybe penis should not be erected, though.
And who conflated sexual harassment with someone’s personal sex life?
Not I or the exiled Juan.
We are easily wound up when the word sex is used.
Madison Avenue knows this, as well as the media. They both use that word to get your attention, and obviously it is working.
Just to be clear…sexual harassment and rape are about power.
This post was about Herman Cain’s sexual harassment “scandal”, I’m not the only one who got the wrong impression, see Greg Diamond’s comment and Stanley’s sensitive reply.
Why you guys find him amusing is beyond me, all I get is zzzzzzzz’s .
*blush* you’re right, I guess…
“zzzzzzzz’s”……… Hmmmmm
FYI, Onanster, I give only ‘the ebe-gee-bees’ not “zzzzzzzz’s”.
I hope that I will not decide to run against Pulido or for 69 District.
I’m not sure that it’s “amusing,” Anonster. More like it’s the Serenity Prayer in action,
“the Serenity Prayer”……… Hmmmmm
I did not know that you are recovering Alcoholics Anonymous and twelve-step programs member.
FAQ: Is it voluntary or court ordered membership?
Anonster….Do you really want to use Greg and Stanley as your moral compass ?
What’s next ? Put Stanley in charge of the spelling bee ?
Demagogue,
What?!
You’re the one who “agreed” with Stanley, I skip his comments because they’re always full of the same incomprehensible drivel, which I find boring.
That’s right, Camarillo, you did not know that. You apparently also didn’t know that the Serenity Prayer, attributed to the great theologian Reinhold Niebuhr in 1943 (although apparently adapted from similar oral versions of it), pre-existed its adoption by AA and other twelve-step programs. (I presume that you first encountered it through Bus Frottagers Anonymous.) It is commonly heard out in the broader world as well.
For those who wonder what Camarillo and I are discussing, it’s this:
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
A pretty good sentiment for everyone. Stanley falls into category 1.
Now thats entertainment.
*No need to exaggerate the deed….but there is a need to exaggerate the times in which we live. Years ago…we cautioned others that people were trying to take away firearm ownership for citizens. They paid no attention. Later, we cautioned that people were trying to take away our right to smoke on airplanes. They paid no attention. The realities are this: Sexism is over. We have had our day….of over zealous bad boys farting in the movie theater. The times have changed folks and when someone jumps into the race for President of the United States….his many years of child abuse, sexual misconduct, duplicity, bribery or any other misfortunate action taken up to 50 years ago….comes up….they better to able to answer it, deal with it or forget that race for President. Arnold got by with one, when he ran for Governor, because of his celebrity and his apparent pristine family ties. “The Folks” as Bill O’Reilly might say will not be so forgiving to anyone else in future. Bad Conduct will be punished….just ask our favorite non-Presidential Candidate passed Senator George Allen. Actions have consequences…even for the little folks.
hey democrap you have smart women . who said this great line – we have to pass this bill so we can see what is in it . a true brain warrior like you . right on michell . these im better than you libs are a piece of work . i would use another word on here but i think them being SO SMART can figure out what that word is .
Andrew Sullivan on support for Huntsman vs. Cain;
“When you realize this intelligent and capable two-term governor from the rock-ribbed Republican state of Utah, with deep domestic and foreign policy experience, has one tenth of the support of a pizza guy who emerged from motivational speaking and talk radio, and who admits he knows nothing about foreign policy and has never held elective office in his life … well, you have the core reality of today’s Ailes-led, resentment-fueled GOP.”
well the core of the dems is a communinty organizer who has never ran a busniness or been in the miltiary . whos he kidding he knows nothing about foreign policy and sends his time bowing down and going on apolgy tours . hung around with a terrorist and a racist minister . and belives in socialist redistrabution .
Of course you would fail to mention his State Assembly and Senate experience. We would expect no less from you, Grating Juan.
The man you say knows nothing about foreign policy was just part of a coalition that brought freedom from Kadafi to all Libyans, is getting us out of a 10-year nightmare in Iraq, and kept a campaign promise by going after the most wanted terrorist in the world without the permission of Pakistan.
Or would you have preferred to go with the “expert,” John McCain, who said he’d never do that without consulting Pakistan first?
And Obama never said he knows nothing about foreign policy, as Cain has. In today’s GOP, ignorance is apparently a virtue.
Obama knew enough about foreign policy way back in 2002, to know what bullshit all the stated reasons for invading Iraq were, and what a bad idea it was. That is, he knew more than most Republicans and many Democrats who were then in Congress.
*Community Organizer..eh? Yep, try Global Organizer, try putting down the worst terrorists on the planet. Try bringing our troops home. Try taking on all comers.
No worries right now. Even the only other possible Republican challengers have opted out intelligently until 2016. Come on down Cain-Bachmann! Maybe just do a straight Mormon ticket…..What’s his face & Huntsman? Paul-Gingrich? Nah….2016 please.
No, McCain-Palin……was probably not the best team for 2008, now was it?
oh the state and assembly experience the ones he did not show up 2 million times to. mcain palin was not good and obama barley one . just a coiple of states and it swings the other way . this election the people know what their getting now . he is toast in nov , the dems lose eveyrthing house , senate , pres and lets see what the other side can do for a while .
sorry type too fast for those better than everyone libs couple , barely
No problem TGO it happens to me all the time! Probably I am typing even faster.
However, next time put down that lager.
stanley ice cold lager really good
especially if made with barley.
*the great one…….we love prognostications…by anyone. Obama is going to win….going away. Why? Because Mitt continues to put his Mitt in his own mouth faster than greased lightning. Add Corn Syrup and salt and sit back and watch.