Herman Cain is toast.
 

Paid off not one, but two women who he had sexually harassed.

Exclusive: 2 women accused Herman Cain of inappropriate behavior - Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman and Anna Palmer and Kenneth P. Vogel - POLITICO.com

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000..._2_xlarge.jpeg

Innocent people don't pay off those who accuse them of wrong doing.

First - "Innocent people" is who in your statement?

I await the day Joe becomes toast.

So go ahead and hand me my ass.

I really have to explain this?

You made the statement "Innocent people don't pay off those who accuse them of wrong doing."

So I am attempting to determine exactly WHO you:

1. Reference as the "innocent people", and

2. Did they ("innocent people") "... pay off..."?

Awaiting your response.

Clarence Thomas survived the "Long Dong Silver" incident.

Was there any proof of guilt?

You know exactly what I am talking about.

:rofl:

:rolleyes:

Your insinuation is that no corporation has ever looked at the cost to defend itself versus the cost of making something go away and decided not to defend itself because it was much cheaper to simply make the problem go away, regardless of guilt.

Did that happen here? I don't know.

Does that happen elsewhere? All the damn time.

Of course, if it were the exact same story with the exact same facts, evidence, and articles, but with "Obama" instead of "Cain" the right would be all over it, and screaming "you lie" and "look at him try to spin this one".

Not saying he's guilty, of course, it's pretty common to have women pull this kind of stunt. When it comes to sexual misbehavior, the mere accusation is often taken at face value as fact by many.

Good - thus the following analysis of your statements will be without dispute:

1. Your inference is that Cain was the 'innocent' individual, thus culpable in any compensation paid. That is incorrect.

2. Cain paid NOTHING, ZERO, NADA. Apparently the Nat'l Restaurant Association paid something - possibly severance, but nothing to do with liability associated with this matter.

Apparently you have never been trained in HR, or Law. Had you it would be most apparent that if there was a valid, justifiable case of sexual harassment the 'lady's' (using the term loosely) would have sued via the court system.

Payment by corporations for these unjustified (in many instances) allegations is common place - in many instances it is cheaper to do so than going to court.

Bill Clinton paid (out of CONTRIBUTIONS from idiot supporters of his) over $850,000 to Monica - when PROOF positive existed there was not only sexual advance, but action(s).

Once again you have shown a lack of understanding of the Laws of the USA - but then that is to be expected from one wanting to overturn the Laws unless they benefit the communist/socialist desires.

It wasn't just one woman, it was TWO.

And how the hell do you know that these were not legitimate complaints?

Herman Cain was the head of the company at the time the hush money was paid out. He would have HAD to have known the payments were made.