Liberalism, Conservatism, and Herman Cain
Nov 8, 2011 11:00:29 GMT -5
Post by baydoll on Nov 8, 2011 11:00:29 GMT -5
By Fred DeRuvo
November 8, 2011
Dictionary.com provides a meaning for the word “liberal.” It is “favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.”
Really? I think too many “liberals” have completely missed that, by a long shot. In fact, it is very clear that in many ways, liberals are only liberals when it comes to their pet projects, like abortion. When we are dealing with gun rights, liberals are extremely narrow. They want guns gone, completely outlawed. If we allow that, then the only people who actually have guns will be the criminals and they will then understand that unless they are up against a law enforcement official, they will generally not be resisted by the average person.
Or let’s take the fact that liberals don’t like conservatives. Liberals – for as much as they claim they are in fact liberal – want to impose more laws on people. They want to make guns more difficult to get. They want to create laws that make it easier for someone to have an abortion.
Conservatives, generally speaking, want less governmental intrusion. Liberals might say they want that, but unfortunately, the only way they know how to reach that goal is through legislative measures.
Because conservatives do not want more government control and liberals essentially do, it is easy to see why the word “liberal” as applied to them is an oxymoron. It is also easy to see why they don’t like conservatives.
Let’s take Herman Cain for example. Supposedly, in 1997, Herman Cain (who is married to a very beautiful woman and has been for 40 years), sexually harassed three…no wait, four women. The latest alleged victim stated that she didn’t come forward then because she didn’t have a job. Now that others have come forward, it has made it easier for her to do so. Of course, Gloria Allred is close behind, as she was with the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas “high-tech lynching” (in Thomas’ words).
The sad reality is that there is no proof of any sexual misconduct by Cain. However, in today’s overly politically correct society, if a woman simply comes forward to claim sexual harassment, it must be true. How fair is that to the man, who may or may not be innocent? Moreover, how is it even possible to determine the truthfulness of the situation? Should everyone undergo a lie detector test? They’re not fool proof. Should the subjects in question be hypnotized, or given “truth serum”?
The bottom line is that because someone is accused of something, people generally tend to believe that there must be at least some truth in the matter. We all tend to think that, unfortunately. When someone is arrested and charged with something, we tend to think that the police have done their job well and arrested someone who is actually guilty of the crime for which he/she is being arrested. We don’t know that though until all the evidence is presented.
I will admit that I have rushed to conclusions. Originally, I thought Bill Clinton was completely innocent, only to find out that he wasn’t. I originally believed that O.J. Simpson was guilty and I have not changed my mind.
I recently read of the sex scandal at Penn State and unfortunately, I am of the opinion that the three men involved are likely guilty to some extent. They may not be and they deserve a fair trial. In this particular case, there were reports made to people who could have done something, but did not. There are victims who have given specific information.
As far as Herman Cain is concerned, he may be guilty. I would like to think that he is not and the reason it is easier to believe he is not guilty is because he is the frontrunner of the race for the GOP presidential nomination. If he was nobody, at the back of the pack, I do not honestly believe that this would be happening to Cain. In that sense then, it is all politics.
Since Gloria Allred is involved, I’m also skeptical. I guess I shouldn’t be because she specializes in this type of case, yet with the Anita Hill debacle, Hill was completely unconvincing to me. In fact, she lacked the emotional baggage that often comes from being sexually manipulated or in some way, pressured to do something that you don’t want to do…or lose your job.
It seemed too convenient then with Clarence Thomas (a conservative) and it seems too convenient now with Cain (a conservative). The fact that this occurred in 1997 and it has never come out makes me believe that this is way too convenient.
At least one of the women was given some sort of settlement in exchange for her silence. Now, she wants to be able to talk about the incident. If she is allowed to talk, then she should have to give her settlement back since part of the agreement meant that she would not discuss it.
It is difficult for me to believe that a man who purportedly loves his wife as Herman Cain does and has been happily married for 40 years could have done something like this and not have been found out by anyone.
Look, no one really knows what happened with Cain and those women. Their charges could all be true. The reality though is the fact that all of this coming out now is nothing but politicizing events for the purpose of ruining someone’s chances to become president.
I think though if we were to compare Mr. Obama’s problems with Herman Cain’s, it wouldn’t compare. Once again though, the media is being undeservedly good to the Obamas by siding with them, and taking them out of the limelight.
We hear less and less of “Fast and Furious” which resulted in the deaths of Americans and Mexicans. Laws were broken. Criminal liability exists. Yet that does not concern the news. What concerns the news is the allegations that Cain sexually harassed four women.
I really don’t care what their excuse is for not talking prior to this. The fact that they are talking now is purely political and anyone who would deny this is a liberal who doesn’t like conservatives, especially when they have a chance of unseating Mr. Obama, whom many consider to be America’s messiah.
But lo and behold, what do we have here? Apparently, just days PRIOR to accusing presidential hopeful Herman Cain of sexually harassing her years ago, the fourth woman accuser – Sharon Bialek – was photographed at a Tea Party event WITH Herman Cain. Witnesses said she HUGGED Cain and talked with him (whispering in his ear) for a bit. Here’s the photo with the link to the actual story:
(photo in link below)
That is absolutely astounding, isn’t it? Here this woman, who said the reason she did not come forward prior to this was due to the fact that she was “embarrassed” was apparently not so embarrassed that she found it difficult to hug and converse with the man who allegedly sexually harassed her!
I bet Gloria Allred didn’t see THAT coming. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Look, here is the reality folks: politics will ALWAYS play a part in any election, especially when you’re dealing with the highest office of the land. Gloria Allred and her cronies are only interested in bringing down conservatives. They WANT “liberals” (remember, that’s an oxymoron) to remain in office because special interest groups like women’s groups, gay and lesbian groups, and others get what they want – Socialism, Marxism. Conservatives want LESS governmental control, while liberals want MORE of it. So much for being liberal and wanting people to enjoy more freedoms. The liberals want to legislate our land to death.
If you look at the photo above, please note that Bialek is right NEXT to Cain, with her arm around him. She did not choose a position that would have put her on the OUTSIDE of Cain. She is right next to him. For goodness sakes, how authentic are her claims and why should we NOW believe that in spite of the fact that she alleges improprieties?
The political machine runs rampant over people. If this woman’s story is now suspect because of how she acted toward Cain during the above event, then we must also suspect the other women.
The reality though is that Cain was/is the frontrunner. Dirty politics played a part in removing him from that position. If Romney or someone else becomes the frontrunner, the spotlight will shift to them and we will then learn of the dirt (alleged or real) in their closet.
The most troubling aspect of all of this though is how the media consistently grants Mr. Obama a complete pass. Doesn’t matter what he is accused of or alleged to have done or not done. It simply does not matter.
Until that aspect of “reporting” the news changes, it will be difficult to believe anyone coming forward with any accusation against someone who is conservative.
studygrowknowblog.com/2011/11/08/liberalism-conservativism-and-herman-cain/
November 8, 2011
Dictionary.com provides a meaning for the word “liberal.” It is “favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.”
Really? I think too many “liberals” have completely missed that, by a long shot. In fact, it is very clear that in many ways, liberals are only liberals when it comes to their pet projects, like abortion. When we are dealing with gun rights, liberals are extremely narrow. They want guns gone, completely outlawed. If we allow that, then the only people who actually have guns will be the criminals and they will then understand that unless they are up against a law enforcement official, they will generally not be resisted by the average person.
Or let’s take the fact that liberals don’t like conservatives. Liberals – for as much as they claim they are in fact liberal – want to impose more laws on people. They want to make guns more difficult to get. They want to create laws that make it easier for someone to have an abortion.
Conservatives, generally speaking, want less governmental intrusion. Liberals might say they want that, but unfortunately, the only way they know how to reach that goal is through legislative measures.
Because conservatives do not want more government control and liberals essentially do, it is easy to see why the word “liberal” as applied to them is an oxymoron. It is also easy to see why they don’t like conservatives.
Let’s take Herman Cain for example. Supposedly, in 1997, Herman Cain (who is married to a very beautiful woman and has been for 40 years), sexually harassed three…no wait, four women. The latest alleged victim stated that she didn’t come forward then because she didn’t have a job. Now that others have come forward, it has made it easier for her to do so. Of course, Gloria Allred is close behind, as she was with the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas “high-tech lynching” (in Thomas’ words).
The sad reality is that there is no proof of any sexual misconduct by Cain. However, in today’s overly politically correct society, if a woman simply comes forward to claim sexual harassment, it must be true. How fair is that to the man, who may or may not be innocent? Moreover, how is it even possible to determine the truthfulness of the situation? Should everyone undergo a lie detector test? They’re not fool proof. Should the subjects in question be hypnotized, or given “truth serum”?
The bottom line is that because someone is accused of something, people generally tend to believe that there must be at least some truth in the matter. We all tend to think that, unfortunately. When someone is arrested and charged with something, we tend to think that the police have done their job well and arrested someone who is actually guilty of the crime for which he/she is being arrested. We don’t know that though until all the evidence is presented.
I will admit that I have rushed to conclusions. Originally, I thought Bill Clinton was completely innocent, only to find out that he wasn’t. I originally believed that O.J. Simpson was guilty and I have not changed my mind.
I recently read of the sex scandal at Penn State and unfortunately, I am of the opinion that the three men involved are likely guilty to some extent. They may not be and they deserve a fair trial. In this particular case, there were reports made to people who could have done something, but did not. There are victims who have given specific information.
As far as Herman Cain is concerned, he may be guilty. I would like to think that he is not and the reason it is easier to believe he is not guilty is because he is the frontrunner of the race for the GOP presidential nomination. If he was nobody, at the back of the pack, I do not honestly believe that this would be happening to Cain. In that sense then, it is all politics.
Since Gloria Allred is involved, I’m also skeptical. I guess I shouldn’t be because she specializes in this type of case, yet with the Anita Hill debacle, Hill was completely unconvincing to me. In fact, she lacked the emotional baggage that often comes from being sexually manipulated or in some way, pressured to do something that you don’t want to do…or lose your job.
It seemed too convenient then with Clarence Thomas (a conservative) and it seems too convenient now with Cain (a conservative). The fact that this occurred in 1997 and it has never come out makes me believe that this is way too convenient.
At least one of the women was given some sort of settlement in exchange for her silence. Now, she wants to be able to talk about the incident. If she is allowed to talk, then she should have to give her settlement back since part of the agreement meant that she would not discuss it.
It is difficult for me to believe that a man who purportedly loves his wife as Herman Cain does and has been happily married for 40 years could have done something like this and not have been found out by anyone.
Look, no one really knows what happened with Cain and those women. Their charges could all be true. The reality though is the fact that all of this coming out now is nothing but politicizing events for the purpose of ruining someone’s chances to become president.
I think though if we were to compare Mr. Obama’s problems with Herman Cain’s, it wouldn’t compare. Once again though, the media is being undeservedly good to the Obamas by siding with them, and taking them out of the limelight.
We hear less and less of “Fast and Furious” which resulted in the deaths of Americans and Mexicans. Laws were broken. Criminal liability exists. Yet that does not concern the news. What concerns the news is the allegations that Cain sexually harassed four women.
I really don’t care what their excuse is for not talking prior to this. The fact that they are talking now is purely political and anyone who would deny this is a liberal who doesn’t like conservatives, especially when they have a chance of unseating Mr. Obama, whom many consider to be America’s messiah.
But lo and behold, what do we have here? Apparently, just days PRIOR to accusing presidential hopeful Herman Cain of sexually harassing her years ago, the fourth woman accuser – Sharon Bialek – was photographed at a Tea Party event WITH Herman Cain. Witnesses said she HUGGED Cain and talked with him (whispering in his ear) for a bit. Here’s the photo with the link to the actual story:
(photo in link below)
That is absolutely astounding, isn’t it? Here this woman, who said the reason she did not come forward prior to this was due to the fact that she was “embarrassed” was apparently not so embarrassed that she found it difficult to hug and converse with the man who allegedly sexually harassed her!
I bet Gloria Allred didn’t see THAT coming. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Look, here is the reality folks: politics will ALWAYS play a part in any election, especially when you’re dealing with the highest office of the land. Gloria Allred and her cronies are only interested in bringing down conservatives. They WANT “liberals” (remember, that’s an oxymoron) to remain in office because special interest groups like women’s groups, gay and lesbian groups, and others get what they want – Socialism, Marxism. Conservatives want LESS governmental control, while liberals want MORE of it. So much for being liberal and wanting people to enjoy more freedoms. The liberals want to legislate our land to death.
If you look at the photo above, please note that Bialek is right NEXT to Cain, with her arm around him. She did not choose a position that would have put her on the OUTSIDE of Cain. She is right next to him. For goodness sakes, how authentic are her claims and why should we NOW believe that in spite of the fact that she alleges improprieties?
The political machine runs rampant over people. If this woman’s story is now suspect because of how she acted toward Cain during the above event, then we must also suspect the other women.
The reality though is that Cain was/is the frontrunner. Dirty politics played a part in removing him from that position. If Romney or someone else becomes the frontrunner, the spotlight will shift to them and we will then learn of the dirt (alleged or real) in their closet.
The most troubling aspect of all of this though is how the media consistently grants Mr. Obama a complete pass. Doesn’t matter what he is accused of or alleged to have done or not done. It simply does not matter.
Until that aspect of “reporting” the news changes, it will be difficult to believe anyone coming forward with any accusation against someone who is conservative.
studygrowknowblog.com/2011/11/08/liberalism-conservativism-and-herman-cain/
