68
   

The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

 
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2011 08:45 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
If you was more intelligent pom I would attempt to explain what an anti-woman remark that is.


The verb you wanted to use should have been "were." Was, in this sentence, sounds illiterate.
Quote:
As it is I'll content myself with saying that it is suprising that a supporter of teaching evolution in schools turns out to be a silly, puritanical prig.


Unlike most conservative women, I am not round-heeled . . . or desperate.
Quote:
Obviously you have no coherent definition of "teaching evolution in schools".


Non sequitur
Quote:
Take a look at Pagan, Hindu, Polynesian, Neolithic and Japanese art from periods before Christian influence.


A second non sequitur.




plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2011 08:48 pm
@realjohnboy,
A hotel bar or lobby is actually a good place to meet someone. They tend to be quieter than other bars, the seating is more comfortable and clients are not rushed out as they are at restaurants or stand alone taverns.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2011 08:54 pm
@plainoldme,
I can't imagine meeting a prospective employer/employee in a bar, regardless of the ambiance, as appropriate.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2011 09:14 pm
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
A hotel bar or lobby is actually a good place to meet someone.

Sure ... for a date.
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2011 09:19 pm
@realjohnboy,
Quote:
I find it bizarre that someone in Cain's position at the NRA with ambitions for something further would meet alone with a woman in a bar and then at a restaurant without a witness/chaperone.
I find it suspicious that the woman - seemingly a professional - would get herself into a situation of meeting a potential employer in a bar and then a restaurant.

This was a planned business meeting--she went to Washington to discuss getting a job with him. So it wasn't like they were complete strangers to each other, and they went out to dinner, ostensibly to discuss employment matters. People often meet to discuss business over dinner. It would never occur to me that there was anything wrong with my having dinner with a potential employer to discuss a job. In fact, I distinctly remember going out for lunch with a man who had just interviewed me and offered me a job. It was simply a pleasant business lunch that enabled us to get better acquainted.
Men and women interact in social/business meetings all the time--without chaperones. Most people behave appropriately in those situations. Unfortunately, it does sound like Cain didn't always do that.
Quote:
She said she booked herself a room at a hotel two blocks from the White House and when she checked in, it was upgraded to a suite by Cain. They went to dinner at an Italian restaurant and after dinner Cain made unwanted advances toward Bialek in the car.

When she asked what he was doing, she said he responded by rhetorically asking her: "You want a job, right?"

She said Cain stopped when she made it clear she was not interested.

I'd wonder why he upgraded her hotel room to a suite, but maybe he did that sort of thing routinely or automatically as part of his lobbying activities for the NRA, or maybe he was trying to impress her and make her more receptive to his advances.
The fact that he stopped making advances when she asked him to, means he didn't do her any real harm, and that's important. But, if what she says is true, his groping behavior was inappropriate, particularly because he was saying that if she wanted a job, he expected her to put out, and that's where he crossed a line.
I think he should admit he may have behaved inappropriately toward women in the past, in situations related to employment, acknowedge he was wrong and apologize for his actions, and put the issue to rest. It's his denials that don't ring true because some of his actions and comments, involving one of the other women, were apparently witnessed by other people because they took place in a restaurant, and financial settlements were made by the NRA to two women.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2011 09:32 pm
@Ticomaya,
No, for a meeting. Not a date at all.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2011 09:35 pm
@firefly,
While I have never had an interview at a restaurant, my former husband had. And I've seen what seemed like job interviews being conducted at restaurants many times. I agree with you.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2011 09:37 pm
@Ticomaya,
Ticomaya wrote:

plainoldme wrote:
A hotel bar or lobby is actually a good place to meet someone.

Sure ... for a date.


I'm with you on this.
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Mon 7 Nov, 2011 10:24 pm
@ehBeth,
People meet for drinks, or lunch, or dinner, as part of networking relating to business or employment--and it's not at all a dating or purely social situation.
And networking appears to have been what this woman was doing--he had a lot of connections and influence and she was looking for his help with her job search. She had already worked for the NRA.
Quote:

She said she was let go from the National Restaurant Association's Educational Foundation in the summer of 1997 and asked to meet him for coffee a month or so later in Washington, to ask for his assistance with her job search.

So, if two people meet for coffee, or drinks, or dinner, to discuss possible employment, or business issues, it's always suspect if one of them is male and the other female? Networking of that sort can only go on among men? As soon as you have a man and a woman in that sort of situation you have "a date"?

Come on, when people want to meet or get together to discuss matters like that, particularly when one is from out of town, they'll go to a restaurant and have dinner and talk. It's more relaxed and less formal than sitting in an office. And the woman isn't saying that Cain behaved at all inappropriately during dinner.

I see nothing wrong with two people having dinner together to discuss business related issues. I've often had lunch or dinner with male colleagues, without any "chaperones" present, and have never given it a second thought. And nothing inappropriate ever went on. And I don't think this woman anticipated that Cain would make moves on her, you really don't expect that sort of thing to happen in that type of situation. Maybe plainoldme is right about women being naive about that, but, I don't think most men would do what Cain did with that woman in the car after they had dinner. In business related encounters, most men behave appropriately, and so do most women.

Cain seems to have had a problem with inappropriate behavior, at least in the past, and he should admit to it already. If he keeps denying it, he'll have women crawling out of the woodwork simply to support each other, which is what this latest woman appears to be doing.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 05:20 am
@plainoldme,
Quote:
The verb you wanted to use should have been "were." Was, in this sentence, sounds illiterate.


I read a lot of 18th century stuff pom. Boswell. Johnson. Fielding kinda ****. I picked the habit up there. I prefer the sound of it. I typed "were" originally and then changed it for that reason. It's common even now with barmaids and women of that type. "We was" sounds quite feminine to me. It tells me the speaker is not posh like wot you is. I'm not all that fond of posh women to tell you the truth. I found it was necessary to wait for them to give me permission to behave "appropriately" and it seemed to me to turn everything upside down and when they did eventually condescend to take the initiative I had long lost interest and it became embarrassing with them accusing me of not finding them attractive and sobbing and all.

So I gave posh women up. Common women don't get all steamed up about inappropriate advances. They either succumb enthusiastically or hand out a right cross. At least a chap knows where he stands.

I think if we men waited for women to say what was appropriate behaviour the human race would die out.

I saw Ms Bialek on CBS News last night and if I was/were to be absolutely honest, as I always try to be, I wouldn't touch her with a barge pole. That hair were scary. (I used "were" there to get the assonance effect and "hair" in this context might be seen as plural anyway). She seems to think that evolution made a mistake in providing her with a left eye.

And we have to admit that from a scientific point of view her primary sexual characteristic has provided her with her shot at short-term fame. I would guess she didn't sleep a wink last night.

I've been in a similar situation that Herman found himself in and it is very difficult to know what to do. Refusing to tender solicitations towards a woman who has forced her presence onto one in order to achieve some objective is ungallant. Mr Cain possibly closed his eyes and thought he should take one for the team. I presume it was dark in the car so it would not be too bad. In bright sunlight and without the dye, the make up and the fetching clothes it would be different. Did any chaps ring Mr Cain to beg for a job in the brazen manner Ms Bialek employed?

When non sequiturs are not allowed in political discourse I think we might all become speechless. A giant one won the last election.

Not that my remarks were non sequiturs.

I thought you had me on Ignore.

0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 01:17 pm
I believe I recently read that Ms Bialek was seeking the job she approached Cain about because she had been fired from her previous position for falsifying a sexual harrassment charge.

Can anyone confirm?
TheLeapist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 01:21 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Yep, the article has been posted in the politics section of a2k. Wink It's on the front page now.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 01:22 pm
PPP:

Quote:
“Q: Do you think the Republicans are intentionally stalling efforts to jumpstart the economy to insure that Barack Obama is not reelected or not?”

Yes: 50%
No: 41%
Unsure: 10%


This mirrors a WaPo poll on this subject from just yesterday. I think this gives credit to the idea that the Dems and Obama can hang the bad economy around the neck of the GOP in the next election. And it has the added bonus of being perfectly true.

Cycloptichorn
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 01:25 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
. I think this gives credit to the idea that the Dems and Obama can hang the bad economy around the neck of the GOP in the next election
You seem to be blissfully unaware that a great many people believe that the government can not jump start the economy, and that all efforts to try are doomed to be counter productive. This poll result does not say what you think it says.
TheLeapist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 01:27 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
This mirrors a WaPo poll on this subject from just yesterday. I think this gives credit to the idea that the Dems and Obama can hang the bad economy around the neck of the GOP in the next election. And it has the added bonus of being perfectly true.
Even if this really was true doesn't it in a way, though, show the incompetence of the dems to "out maneuver" the right?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 01:30 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
. I think this gives credit to the idea that the Dems and Obama can hang the bad economy around the neck of the GOP in the next election
You seem to be blissfully unaware that a great many people believe that the government can not jump start the economy, and that all efforts to try are doomed to be counter productive. This poll result does not say what you think it says.


No, I think I have it right, and instead, you are wrong.

There certainly are people who think that the gov't can do nothing to jump-start the economy; they are fools who understand nothing of economics. We generally refer to them as 'Republicans.'

Cycloptichorn
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 01:42 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
There certainly are people who think that the gov't can do nothing to jump-start the economy; they are fools who understand nothing of economics. We generally refer to them as 'Republicans.
I seem to remember a consensus of polling data that showed that independents do not think that the stimulus package worked or was a good use of money. It is not just REPUBS who have lost faith in the governments ability/willingness to fix this economy. We seem to be coming to the conclusion that the flaws are too deep, that the fix will be time consuming and difficult. The number you should be watching is the percent of americans who believe that government efforts to fix the economy is actually making it worse. Washington making too big to fail financial firms even bigger post 2008, and the fact that the super rich are now again swimming in profits as about 50 million ( and number growing very fast) Americans live in poverty tends to argue that government is not our friend, that it belongs to our oppressors. As such stopping Washington from dong any more damage represents a victory.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 01:46 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
I seem to remember a consensus of polling data that showed that independents do not think that the stimulus package worked or was a good use of money.


Who gives a ****? Most economists would say that those people are clearly wrong. Not only that, but the GOP has put out as much propoganda as possible to convince people this is true, so it's not surprising that the weak-minded will be susceptible to it.

Quote:
The number you should be watching is the percent of americans who believe that government efforts to fix the economy is actually making it worse.


Do you have such a number? Or just sorta, yaknow, throwing things out there.

Cycloptichorn
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 01:58 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I believe I recently read that Ms Bialek was seeking the job she approached Cain about because she had been fired from her previous position for falsifying a sexual harrassment charge.

The Cain team has accused her of several things, but that doesn't seem to be one of them.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Nov, 2011 02:05 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The recovery is picking up steam as employers boost payrolls, but economists think the government's stimulus package and jobs bill had little to do with the rebound, according to a survey released Monday.

In latest quarterly survey by the National Association for Business Economics, the index that measures employment showed job growth for the first time in two years -- but a majority of respondents felt the fiscal stimulus had no impact.



NABE conducted the study by polling 68 of its members who work in economic roles at private-sector firms. About 73% of those surveyed said employment at their company is neither higher nor lower as a result of the $787 billion Recovery Act, which the White House's Council of Economic Advisers says is on track to create or save 3.5 million jobs by the end of the year.

That sentiment is shared for the recently passed $17.7 billion jobs bill that calls for tax breaks for businesses that hire and additional infrastructure spending. More than two-thirds of those polled believe the measure won't affect payrolls, while 30% expect it to boost hiring "moderately."


http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/26/news/economy/NABE_survey/

So much for claims that the economists are on your side

Quote:

29% Say Stimulus Plan Helped the Economy, 43% Say It Hurt

Just 25% of voters nationwide believe the economic stimulus package created jobs and voters are counting on decisions made by business owners more than government officials to create the jobs needed by the nation.

Those results come from a Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey conducted the night before release of the government report on job creation in June. That report showed the unemployment rate falling to 9.5% but also showed that just 83,000 private sector jobs were created.

The new survey found that just 29% believe last year's economic stimulus plan has helped the economy while 43% believe it hurt. Not surprisingly, there is little appetite for another round. By a 69% to 15% margin, voters believe tax cuts is a better way to create jobs rather than more government spending.

Ultimately, though, voters are looking to the private sector to create jobs. Sixty-five percent (65%) say that decisions made business owners seeking to grow their business will do more to create jobs than decisions made by government officials. Just 23% expect the government officials to have a bigger impact.


http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=31117
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 05/15/2025 at 09:08:17