High Tech Lynching

While the left screams about TEA Party members wanting blacks lynched (a baseless claim) the left is engaging in a high tech lynching of a black conservative. The story that Herman Cain was accused of sexual harassment and that an investigation turned up nothing has not stopped the left wing media (the Democrat wing) from lynching him. The baseless claims line up with the smear job The New York Times did in manufacturing (in 2008) the equally baseless claim that John McCain had an affair.

The left is very fast to jump on the lynch train when it comes to Herman Cain even though the allegations appear baseless. When it comes to their own they ignore the facts to provide protection.

Bill Clinton accused of rape and caught (and verified via DNA) having sex with an intern. He lied about it and the Democrats defended him during the impeachment he suffered for perjury. The left said it was a personal affair, a matter of sex between consenting adults. Nothing to see here so move along.

John Edwards is another example. He denied, denied, denied and then bam, the facts came out and not only did he have an affair while his poor wife was dying of cancer, he fathered a child. He was eventually shunned by his party but not until the evidence was so overwhelming (and sleazy) that there was no way to deny it.

Jesse Jackson, the paragon of virtue, fathered a child with someone that was not his wife. He is still regarded as a spokesperson for the disadvantaged minorities in this country (or those who have been told so often they are disadvantaged that they act like it).

We are all human beings and we all make mistakes. These men suffered their issues in public because of who they are. The untold numbers of people in the same situations are unknown to all except their family and friends because they do not live in the public’s eye.

The problem arises when allegations such as those against McCain and Herman Cain are manufactured and people do not give them the benefit of the doubt because of politics. Clinton and Edwards deny it so it must be false. Cain denies it and he is lying…

Wouldn’t it be better if the NYT did not make up the McCain story?

Wouldn’t it be better if Cain received the same consideration Clinton and Edwards did when the left kept telling us nothing was going on? It has not been shown that Cain did anything wrong. If it turns out that he did then fine, skewer him and send him on his way.

The idea that he needs to be ruined over baseless accusations is one of the things wrong in our political system.

It would have been nice though, if the MSM had spent as much time vetting Obama as it does looking to destroy Republicans.

Certainly there were a few things in Obama’s past that were liabilities. Of course they are not a problem when the MSM is burying legitimate stories.

Then again, the left only lynches blacks who have strayed away from the Democrat plantation.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

50 Responses to “High Tech Lynching”

  1. Adam says:

    It’s a little early to call it baseless. Cain has already been caught in lies about the story and it’s only been out a day. This could sink him quickly and I wouldn’t be shocked to see this was the work of establishment Republicans. Blame the liberal media all you want but remember that liberals would enjoy running against a nut job like Cain so why would we derail him? Why would we want him to exit early and take all the fun out of things? Chew on that a while and consider who profits most from Cain leaving the race.

    • Big Dog says:

      I will go with the Adam line when Obama is caught with two conflicting stories, he did not lie. He was mistaken. I don’t know he has been caught in a lie. I know he is explaining what happened. It is baseless because an investigation showed it did not happen. It is like Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill. She lied and it was baseless but the left had to lynch the black conservative. The left wing media is playing it up. I did not claim who dug it up or who released it, only that the liberal media was happy to use it to harm Cain. I also pointed out they protected liberals who were involved in sex scandals that were true and proven so or they ignored the cries of rape. The left cares not about such things if it hurts one of their own. Hell, how many lib women offered to give Clinton more of those if he did what they wanted?

      The left wants to run against Cain? You have made these claims over and over but Obama is worried. Right now he is in bad shape. Unless he steals the election (and this year we should execute anyone caught cheating) he will probably lose.

  2. victoria says:

    Remember Clarence Thomas.

    • Big Dog says:

      The left does not like him because he is a conservative black so he must be guilty. If a liberal black is accused then it is a racist accusation from whitey…

  3. Adam says:

    “I will go with the Adam line when Obama is caught with two conflicting stories, he did not lie.”

    We can go case by case and examine such examples if you like and talk about whether we think it was a lie or not. Feel free to list. There is almost no way that when confronted with the accusations that Cain would be so confused or mistaken about the details of the event that he would need to change his story over and over again.

    “It is baseless because an investigation showed it did not happen.”

    Right, according to Cain who has changed his story every few hours since the story broke.

    “I also pointed out they protected liberals who were involved in sex scandals…”

    The media treated the POTUS differently 10 years ago? I’m sure but take a look at recent events. The media did not protect Democrats Paterson, Edwards, or Weiner in the least. You’re imagining things.

    You’re so busy pretending the media is biased for liberals that you’ve missed the fact that our media is now entertainment and not informative. Fox News leads the pack, remember.

    “You have made these claims over and over but Obama is worried.”

    I’m sure Obama is worried. It’s a tough economy and he’s faced with a GOP that are willing to hurt the country to get to him. Your side is amazing like that.

    The only thing that will save Obama is if the recovery continues instead of reversing and if the GOP elects someone like Herman Cain.

    • Big Dog says:

      Right, you keep up with the talking points that are spoon fed to you. The media protected those folks you mentioned UNTIL it became obvious that the stories were true. Until that picture of Weiner’s weener was released the MSM was backing him as were many Democrats. Until that pic was released. Clinton was backed and Monica was a whack job stalker UNTIL she showed up with a dress. It is all the same, until they can no longer do it, the MSM covers for them.

      Cain has not lied or changed stories every two hours. This did happen a long time ago. As for case by case, in past posts Adam you and Darrel have defended Obama’s lies as he was mistaken or changed his mind. You all told me that if there was no intent to lie it was not a lie, only a mistake. You can’t back down now and since you all told me that I could not read Obama’s mind and know if he INTENDED to lie, it was not a lie.

      Since you can’t do that with Cain you can’t call it a lie. It could be a mistake or he remembered new information but you can’t show he intended to lie.

      The point is, when it is a liberal we are supposed to wait and see or it is a private matter. When it is a conservative you guys jump right on it and it must be true. When it is a black conservative you all need to lynch him in public. It is what you all did to Clarence Thomas when Anita Hill lied…

      The recovery can’t continue because we are not in a recovery. It is only such in the minds of idiots who believe what they are told and change their stories to fit the agenda. We are not in recovery, we are not gaining jobs, and we are in bad shape.

      All you mindless twits can claim it is the Republicans but they control one half of one third of government. You all control 2 and a half of the three parts. You all controlled the entire thing for a long time and did nothing but pass a socialist agenda (that many are running from now). You all keep blaming it on Republicans when they were elected to stop the madness.

      You say my party will destroy the country to get Obama out of power and it is our MO. A couple of things you need to know though I doubt you will pay attention because the Kool Aid is stong in you Luke Obamawalker.

      1) The Democrats were in charge when the economy tanked. You and Obama can blame Bush but you are wrong. If you are blaming Republicans in Congress now (even though Dems are blocking as well) then you are saying Congress, not the president is to blame. Since Congress was controlled by Democrats when the economy tanked it is not Bush’s fault, it was the Democrats in Congress. Either Bush gets blamed then and Obama now or Congress gets blamed NOW and the Congress then. You can’t have it both ways.

      2) Democrats allowed the economy to tank in order for Obama to be elected. They allowed things to go bad in the midterms so they could take control while Bush was in office. Democrats did the exact same thing then that you are accusing Republicans of now. So either Democrats did what they were elected to do (your claim then) or they were obstructing in order to take Bush down. Once again, you can’t have it both ways.

      Keep in mind, Democrats had control of it all when we tanked. Republicans only control a small portion and cannot get anything passed. You guys want us to ignore the last election and do what you want.

      As for hurting the country to keep power, Obama proposed this Stimulus II knowing it would not pass in order to blame Republicans so he will stand a better chance next year. If he cared about the country he would propose something that would work and listen to the party in power in the House. Obama once said I WON and that was why we had to do it his way. Well, WE WON (and he lost) in the midterms so that is why we DO NOT have to do it his way.

      But you can pray that people won’t see through the lies about Republicans causing the problems. That will cause a big loss, but keep banking on it.

    • Ferd Berfel says:

      “The only thing that will save Obama is if the recovery continues instead of reversing…”

      Eh?

    • Blake says:

      Gee Adam- can you remember what you were doing 10-15 years ago?

  4. Adam says:

    “It is like Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill. She lied and it was baseless…”

    Really? Are you going to call that baseless? She passed a polygraph test. Either she was delusional and thought it really did happen or it did happen. I’m starting to think for you the word “baseless” means you simply don’t want to believe it’s true.

    • Big Dog says:

      She passed a polygraph? Big Deal. They are inadmissable for a reason.

      She made accusations that evidence refuted and her only reason for being there was to try and take down a black conservative, one who might actually overturn Roe, that was it.

      Phone records show she lied about who called whom and support his version. Records from the law firm where she worked show he told the truth and she did not about whether she was in good standing with them or was asked to leave.

      Allegations of rape against Clinton are dismissed because he is white and liberal. Thomas (and Cain) get lynched by liberals because they are black and conservative.

      That racist party of yours rears its ugly head…

      • Adam says:

        “You all told me that if there was no intent to lie it was not a lie, only a mistake.”

        I agree. We’ll just have to wait and see whether it’s a lie or an honest mistake. I don’t mean to suggest I think Cain did it. I don’t know and I hope he didn’t. I just know the way the Cain camp has handled it makes him look more guilty and it’s not the “librul” media that is causing that but his own flip-flopping.

        “1) The Democrats were in charge when the economy tanked.”

        True, though meaningless. The recession began in December 2007 not even a year after they took office. Unemployment begun to rise just months after Democrats took control. I know you like to pretend the recession started late in 2008 but that is just when things exploded. Things caught fire long before that and have nothing to do when the Democrats controlling Congress.

        “2) Democrats allowed the economy to tank in order for Obama to be elected.”

        You’ll need to let me know how they managed that before you use it as an argument.

        “She passed a polygraph? Big Deal. They are inadmissable for a reason.”

        Just depends on how it was administered. If done correctly they are unbeatable unless you are delusional. The fact that you’re calling this a “lynching” just a day after the story broke is funny and dangerous. He could be out of the race by the end of the week. I hope he’s not.

    • Blake says:

      Really, Adam? My dog could pass a poly- I have passed a polygraph- they’re a state of mind, nothing more- that is why they are not allowed in court as evidence of guilt or innocence.
      Perhaps a Republican rival was fed a bit of Restuarant Assn. gossip, then went on and fed Politico the item. That doesn’t mean it was a real, substantial story- and it was, what- 15 years ago? I would have trouble remembering what I did 15 years ago- what about you?

  5. victoria says:

    If this were a black Democratic candidate the left and the media would be all over the women involved here and destroy them anyway they could.

    • Big Dog says:

      Absolutely true just as they did with Clinton and Edwards until it was too late. Hell, they still attack the women who accused Clinton even after he was caught in two lies (Monica and Flowers).

  6. Big Dog says:

    You are telling me a polygrapgh is unbeatable? How many have you had and how much experience do you have with them?

    I have already told you two demonstrable lies she told.

    I already told you. The Democrats caused the problem with the CRA under Clinton and on 16 occasions Bush told them there was a problem. Democrats ignored it. They wanted to allow things to continue even though they knew it was unsustainable so that Bush would be blamed and they would win the election. I must rephrase though. At the time they did not know it would be Obama, it could have been Hillary. They let it tank so a Democrat would win.

    • Adam says:

      “You are telling me a polygrapgh is unbeatable?”

      The key here is that a normal person like Hill cannot defeat a properly administered polygraph test. That is not to say I know all the details of the test or the case or whether she always told the truth or always lied. My main argument is simply that to call it all baseless ignores a lot of details about the case.

      “The Democrats caused the problem with the CRA under Clinton…”

      Funny. Everything was fine for years with CRA and then banks outside of CRA started bundling non-CRA mortgages by the hundreds taking on massive risk. I still don’t see how that is the fault of CRA but I understand how far you’ll go to blame Democrats for this crisis.

      “Democrats ignored it. They wanted to allow things to continue even though they knew it was unsustainable so that Bush would be blamed and they would win the election.”

      Speaking of baseless claims…

      • Big Dog says:

        No, the CRA was not going along just fine. There were loads of problems. I know you can’t see it and I know it is hard for you OWS types to understand that you cannot lend money to people who cannot pay it back no matter whta color they are (and it is not racist). I know you have problems understanding that the Democrats forced the banks to take bad loans and then encouraged them to mak ethem through Fannie and Freddie and that the bad loans the government forced banks to make were bundled and Fannie and Freddie bought them. I know to YOU the banks are at fault for selling off the bad debt they were forced to take by government even though the government encouraged them to do so through Freddie and Fannie.

        I also know that you and your lefty buddies will keep rewriting history to lay blame but the linked article clearly demonstrates what happened and it is the end of the story.

        I also know it is a baseless claim to you for me to claim Democrats ignored the problems but I have linked a number of times to Dodd, Frank, and Waters all saying things were OK when they were not. You know that Democrats worked hard to make everything Bush tried a failure and you know they worked to get a Democrat elected.

        You can call it baseless but it is not unusual for you to ignore things while rationalizing for the left. You get your talking points, twist things around and rewrite history.

        No problem, you just have no legs to stand on. You are wrong. You always demand facts but you do not present them.

        • Adam says:

          “No, the CRA was not going along just fine. There were loads of problems.”

          Not so much.

          “I know to YOU the banks are at fault for selling off the bad debt they were forced to take by government…”

          They were not forced. They got greedy, took on too much risk, and we all got crewed. I know you want badly to blame Democrats but you’re wrong.

          “You always demand facts but you do not present them.”

          Which facts do you want?

          • Big Dog says:

            No, it is wrong. The banks did not willingly take on too much. They were forced by the government. It is all in the linked article. You can continue to believe what you want but the banks are the problem created by government. Make the loans (forced) or we will call you racists and stop allowing you to do business. Make loans and bundle them to Fannie and Freddie.

            The government caused the problem. It tried to social engineer and allow people who had no business getting loans to get them and it caused a problem.

          • Blake says:

            The Democrats were, by and large, responsible for the accelleration of the loan program, because Frank, Dodd, and Shumer told the banks that they had to loosenthe regs by which they loaned money on mortgages, or the Dems would make life hell for these banks through House and Senate audits of their banks, which would cost milllions- but, the Dems said, if you loosen these regs, and loan to more people, Fannie and Freddie will guarantee these mortgages.
            Well, The FMs went belly up, because all of these banks, under pressure from Congress, dumped all their mortgages there.
            You can’t blame the banks for doing what Congress told them it was legal to do.
            Blame your liberal, progressive, socialist asshat friends in Congress, Adam- not the banks.

  7. Adam says:

    What is strange about the article is there is no new information there. We know there was a push for “fair” lending starting with CRA, building in the 1990’s and continuing into the Bush years. What that doesn’t explain is why you still blame these loans despite the fact that there was a decline in CRA regulated lending while those outside CRA increased greatly from 2003 to 2006 leading up to the crisis.

    The biggest hole in the attempt to blame the crisis on liberal lending policies is that other countries suffered similar booms and busts like the US despite having no such lending situations as CRA or Fannie and Freddie. On the other hand Canada had very similar fair lending policies as the US but did not have the same surge in unregulated lending before the crisis and they faired much better than we did.

    It was lack of regulation and greed that caused this crisis, not the attempt to extend lending to people who couldn’t afford it. The only reason this myth continues is so that your side can ignore responsibility for deregulation, protect the wealthy from blame, and lay it all at the feet of Democrats for bad policy and minorities for taking on loans that you falsely accuse of harming us.

    • Blake says:

      It was the European Hedge Funds that bought the bundled mortgages from the FMs and Lehman Bros., as well as AIG, and BoA that really brought the European crisis on- their banks, which had their Hedge Funds in-house, were weak to start with, and the bundled mortgages proved to be too much.

    • Blake says:

      Also, I can tell you to go to youtube, where you can see Bush(2001), and McCain (2003), both, at different times calling for MORE regulation, not less.
      Hell, even Clinton has a spot on youtube where he blames his own party for the recession vis-a-vis the loan program.

  8. Big Dog says:

    The problem you have is that you don’t know how to define fair. To you it is fair to goive people a loan based on their color and not their ability to pay. The study used to give us CRA was flawed. When it took into account the actual methodolgy that is supposed to be used a large number of people were not eligible and race had nothing to do with it other than minorities were in a larger percentage of people who were not qualified. Their race was not the disqualifier, their inability to pay was.

    But to you and others, the race is the ability to get a loan and pay. That makes it fair in your world. The CRA did not reduce or subside, it increased with liar loans and companies were encouraged to target minorities and to use Fannie and Freddie.

    It is not fair to say a private business has to lend money to people who can’t pay it back based solely on the fact they have more pigmentation. That is a race based policy and social engineering. It is not fair because now all those folks are underwater or foreclosed upon.

    That is what Democrats gave us.

    Bush warned at least 16 times that we were heading south with Fannie and Freddie and Democrats said all was well. This is fact.

    As for the rest of the world, the US banking system heavily influences the rest of the world. A lot of countries invested here because we were (at one time) a safe investment. In addition, the other countries have social programs to a much greater magnitude than we do and the weight of those programs is crushing them. The Socialists n our government want to keep moving to a European type model when Europe is trying to get away from that. We will be crushed like them if we continue this path.

    Canada has a dissimilar program in that their banks did not lend to people who could not afford it. You keep calling it a fair lending policy but it was not. A fair policy decides who can pay and who cannot (or at what level they can borrow and still pay) based on income and credit history. That is what we HAD until the CRA.

    It is no wonder that our government is sinking. People in it have the same business knowledge as you. You think it is a good business model to lend money to people who cannot pay it back.

    Banks bundled the money and sold it. Often Freddie and Fannie ended up with it because that was ENCOURAGED. It has finally come crumbling down.

    I know you like to blame banks for this but the reason we had a housing collapse is because way too many people were allowed to purchase homes they could not afford (and some with crazy loan terms) and when things went bad they lost. The banks did not stop paying for the homes.

    Couple all that with the absolute corruption at Fannie and Freddie with Dem friends getting jobs, lying about fiscal health, pocekting a fortune and leaving and you have a real problem. When Fannie and Freddie hold the majority of mortgages and are so poorly managed, bad things will happen.

    • Adam says:

      The opinions of the Final Report of the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States run contrary to the story you like to repeat about the cause of the crisis.

      On GSEs:

      We conclude that these two entities contributed to the crisis, but were not a primary cause. Importantly, GSE mortgage securities essentially maintained their value throughout the crisis and did not contribute to the significant financial firm losses that were central to the financial crisis. … Those purchases represented 10.5% of non-GSE subprime mortgage-backed securities in 2001, with the share rising to 40% in 2004, and falling back to 28% by 2008.

      On CRA:

      The Commission concludes the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates only 6% of high-cost loans—a proxy for subprime loans—had any connection to the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law.

      • Big Dog says:

        You reference a government report to make your case? Well that certainly is an independent source and quite honorable.

        But keep this in mind, 60% of the people on the panel voted in favor of the report and 40% voted to dissent from the report. In other words, 40% of the people on the panel do not agree with what is in it.

        Of course a government panel will try to ensure a government program is not to blame.

        Others though, have a different opinion:
        Blaming greedy bankers, incompetent rating agencies, or other actors in this unprecedented drama misses the point–perhaps intentionally–that government policies created the incentives for both a housing bubble and a reduction in the bank capital and home equity that could have mitigated its effects. To prevent a recurrence of this disaster, it would be far better to change the destructive government housing policies that brought us to this point than to enact a new regulatory regime that will hinder a quick recovery and obstruct future economic growth. AEI

        Mises

        Business Insider

        So a government report where 40% of the panel disagrees (but you like its conclusion so that is all that matters) or people not in the government coming to a different conclusion. Hmm, I wonder who we whould trust?

        But if you are convinced that government reports are the answer, I want an apology. You have continually blamed Bush for Katrina and you Dems used that disaster to paint him ast the problem. I have continually said that there were failures at all levels and that the lives lost and the severity were because of the inadequate local and state elected leaders (and I pointed out that other states did not have the same problems), a point your side continually ignored or dismissed. The official government report on Katrina puts the blame for the lives lost that could have been saved on Nagin and Blanco:

        The failure of complete evacuations led to preventable deaths, great suffering, and further delays in relief
        ■ Evacuations of general populations went relatively well in all three states.
        ■ Despite adequate warning 56 hours before landfall, Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin delayed ordering a mandatory evacuation in New Orleans until 19 hours before landfall.
        ■ The failure to order timely mandatory evacuations, Mayor Nagin’s decision to shelter but not evacuate the remaining population, and decisions of individuals led to an incomplete evacuation.
        ■ The incomplete pre-landfall evacuation led to deaths, thousands of dangerous rescues, and horrible conditions for those who remained.
        ■ Federal, state, and local offi cials’ failure to anticipate the post-landfall conditions delayed post-landfall evacuation and support.

        Looks like your reliance on government reports will force you to reconsider the blame for Katrina. More goes to local/state and less to Bush (though, as I contended all along, there is blame from the bottom to the top, I just did not ignore it as you did)

        So Adam, I reject your government report. It has a 40% dissent…

        • Adam says:

          “So Adam, I reject your government report.”

          Of course you do. Another perfectly good source goes on the trash heap simply because it disagrees with the carefully constructed world view you have that blames Democrats and the poor for everything and makes victims of conservatives and the wealthy.

          “The official government report on Katrina puts the blame for the lives lost that could have been saved on Nagin and Blanco…”

          Don’t lie. It doesn’t place all the blame on them. I accept the report and I agree with it. I especially like the part that outlines the federal response failure you pretend to acknowledge. Katrina is just like the sub-prime crisis. When pressed you’ll say a lot of people share the blame on both sides but by default you blame Democrats for all the failure top to bottom.

          • Big Dog says:

            How can it be perfectly good when 40% of the people on the committee rejected it? And if you are going to quote me don’t pull that Darrel crap of cutting out parts to make it different. I gave you valid reasons.

            The Katrina report does put the blame on Nagin and Blanco, I copied and pasted right from the report as to why the lives were lost that could have been saved. I did not lie jackass, and I did not say ALL, learn to read.

            And do not pretend to tell me what my conviction is on the issue. Go back to the posts I have written and you can see that I have stated all along that there were failures at all levels. I rejected your party’s assertions that it was ALL Bush which is what you did then and continue to do. I said the bulk belonged at state and local level and that the feds had their share of the problems. You rejected it then as you do now.

            Don’t tell me I pretend something. I bet you do like the part that outlines the federal response I have already pointed out and I like it because it demonstrates my other points. It is not the job of the feds to do this. It is a state issue (Tenth Amendment) and that the feds are not set up or designed to handle this.

            Period.

            Don’t ever assume you know what I have said or what is in my mind. It makes you look stupid to anyone who goes back to read the posts.

            I did not blame only Democrats for sub-prime. There are a lot of people responsible for that but the Dems refused to address it when it was brought to their attention. What you fail to recognize is that government is not supposed to get into social engineering. You, under the guise of fair practices (something I already shot down for you), will allow people to get something they have not earned and cannot afford. How fair is it to set them up for failure all under the false accusation that they do not have the same chances?

            I also lay blame to the Democrats at state and local level for Katrina because the bulk of it is their responsibility. Failure to have an adequate plan and failure to evacuate are the two biggest issues that caused the problems. Period…

            The problem you have is you are unable to have responsibility for your own life and need someone else to assist you. You are unable to do stuff on your own and turn to others. You lack the confidence that you could make it on your own and you feel that all people are like this.

            Most are not, we are the 53%…

        • Big Dog says:

          Those bullet points come right from the report. Who was responsible for the evacuation?

          Here is a clue since you lack those: NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

          Not a lie, just your inability to understand how things work. I understand, you have little exerience without training wheels…

          • Adam says:

            “How can it be perfectly good when 40% of the people on the committee rejected it?”

            You seem to think that dissenting somehow nullifies these facts outlined in the report: CRA and GSEs played no significant role in the financial crisis. To suggest otherwise is to either be ignorant or partisan and probably both.

            “You, under the guise of fair practices (something I already shot down for you), will allow people to get something they have not earned and cannot afford.”

            You shot down a straw man, that’s what you did. CRA did not make banks give loans to people who could not afford it or had not earned. I know that’s hard to understand again because it deflates your world view, but the facts are facts.

            “I did not blame only Democrats for sub-prime.”

            Sure. You only claim that Democratic policies caused it, and Democrats prevented Republicans from stopping it. Other than that you spread the blame around fairly.

            You’ve done it again with Katrina. You took a report that outlines vast failures at the state and local level (which you pretend Democrats ignore) and you report only the failures of the Democrats at state level.

            “The problem you have is you are unable to have responsibility for your own life and need someone else to assist you.”

            Sorry. You can’t just make up stuff about me simply because you get mad when I question your graph of the facts.

            This whole Cain post is in error. You called Democrats liars and racists and the facts baseless but you wrote all this too soon and now you look like a fool.

            • Big Dog says:

              The dissent does not mena the conclusion was wrong in any case but the conclusion was wrong regardless. You ignore the facts. The CRA required banks to make bad loans. The truth is there, the facts are there and it has been well documented over the years. It is also well docummented that the CRA and the GSEs were major contributors, despite the trustworthy government report that contradicts the facts. Government likes to have panels investigate the problems it caused so it can deny government caused them.

              You question my grasp of the facts because I do not agree with your grasp of the facts. It is not a matter of indsulting you because you question what you consider to be wrong in what I say. I don’t care what you think. You have been wrong a million times as in calling a comment racist because it fits your definition of racist. Just because something does not agree with your limited worldview does not mean that the person is wrong. You tend to throw red herrings around and manipulate items.

              I wrote this early and look like a fool? How can that be? It looks like Rahm has his hands in it and Cain has yet to be shown as a liar. So far, no one has been specific, no one has revealed who they were and the guy who ran the NRA says this was a hatchet job. No one has yet to say what he did wrong. So tell me, how do I look like a fool?

              Reality check, a liberal actually commits a sex related thing and the accuser is attacked (see Clinton), a liberal black man is criticized because of his policy and the people who criticize are racists. A black conservative is attacked for non specific claims of sexual harassment and the attackers are not racist and the accusations are credible because AND ONLY BECAUSE he is conservative and had the audacity to be a black conservative. You folks don’t like them to leave your plantation.

            • Big Dog says:

              And I did not make anything up about you. I have aften been regaled by stories about how you had to have gubmint help either for you or for your family. So yes, it is hard for you to understand what responsibility is when you were raised by the nanny government.

            • Big Dog says:

              Yeah, I look like a fool

              Democrats are liars and racists. That is their history, it is their methodology and it is why they keep blacks in second class citizen status. They keep them on the plantation for a reason, because you all think they belong there.

            • Blake says:

              True, BD- after all, it was a Democrat that stood on the steps of the univ. of Alabama, denying entry to blacks. It was a Texas Dem (Johnson) who dug up a cemetary so they could vote for him- (he won by 28 votes, then that particular ballot box went missing).
              It was Johnson who stood in the way of Civil Rights legislation proposed by Eisenhower in the ’50s, just so he could propose the very same thing in the 60s.
              And to top it off, it might have been Johnson who had Kennedy killed-
              Just sayin’, your side has some ‘splainin’ to do, Lucy.

  9. Adam says:

    “I wrote this early and look like a fool? How can that be? It looks like Rahm has his hands in it and Cain has yet to be shown as a liar. So far, no one has been specific, no one has revealed who they were and the guy who ran the NRA says this was a hatchet job. No one has yet to say what he did wrong. So tell me, how do I look like a fool?”

    Multiple women accusers, money settlements, and statements from NRA backing it up? Obviously you don’t feel like a fool for calling this “baseless” or attacking people for reporting the facts of a case. Maybe you’ll get around to that later…

    “I have aften been regaled by stories about how you had to have gubmint help either for you or for your family.”

    Oh, that’s right. My parents instilled in me a sense that I don’t have to work hard or do anything the right way because the government will take good care of me and my family. That’s very true. That’s why I vote for Democrats so others can be lazy and un-self-reliant like myself. I thought we were talking about something else.

    • Big Dog says:

      I wrote this in the post:

      It has not been shown that Cain did anything wrong. If it turns out that he did then fine, skewer him and send him on his way.

      So far no one has proven anything and one accuser has refused to talk about it.

      Bill Clinton had multiple accusers and your side painted them as liars. It turns out Clinton had to admit that he had an affair with Flowers. Al that was a baseless smear according to the left.

      Cain has accusers and that is it. Obama had accusers saying he had gay sex and used drugs with one of his gay lovers. That was baseless. No proof, right?

      Or are you now saying that all the ACCUSATIONS against Obama have merit simply because several people made them?

      • Adam says:

        “It has not been shown that Cain did anything wrong. If it turns out that he did then fine, skewer him and send him on his way.”

        I still find the most hilarious aspect of your post is that this story broke Sunday the 30th, and on Monday the 31st you were calling it baseless, and unproven. Now every day more information comes out. Just try and keep comparing this to phony stories of Obama’s gay sexcapades or the Clinton scandals. What Politico reported was the facts. Cain was accused of sexual harassment. Of course now one woman with a name and a face is accusing Cain of sexual assault. Vote Cain.

    • Big Dog says:

      Are you self reliant or have you used government programs?

      • Adam says:

        I’m sure I’ve used numerous government programs over the years. I don’t really think you want to argue this with me though. I’m an example of someone who pays far more in federal income taxes per year than I’ve ever collected from government programs my whole life.

  10. Blake says:

    You know, Adam- It is very strange that noone had spoken up until Cain was running for Prez- not a peep.
    And still, there are no women named- I wont lend credence to any story where the accuser is nameless, faceless. That is an integral part of our justice system, is it not? To be able to face your accuser- otherwise its just baseless gossip, nothing more- an attempt to smear someone seen as a threat to the left. That is , after all, how the left does business routinely.

    • Adam says:

      Cain is not on trial so examples of how the justice system work are not relevant. Now, as far as the law goes, up until now the names and faces have remained hidden because of settlement agreements. That is going to change. Cain is ruined. You better hope he drops out. There is no better candidate Democrats would rather run against now. Perhaps a Cain/Gingrich family values ticket could be in order?

      • Big Dog says:

        I don’t care on eway or another. I have not decided on any particular candidate. But we do know he did not commit any kind of sexual harassment. When Clinton was accused by Paula Jones the ruling was that she said no and he got her home. He stopped when she said no. This has been the stories of the allegations against Cain. He made an advance, they said no and he stopped. So, he committed no sexual harassment under the Clinton rule.

        The amazing thing is the number of liberals who defended Clinton who now say there must be something to this because of the number of women. They all can’t be lying.

        When it was Clinton these same liberals said the women were liars and he never did it. Broderick, Jones, Willey are but three who made allegations and Clinton had an inappropriate liaison with Monica. She was discounted until the dress showed up. He said Flowers was a liar until he had to admit under oath.

        All you libs (not you, you were a kid) were saying Clinton did not do it and the women were liars. Allred even rejected takingone of the cases. But let a few women alledge that Cain did it and they are right and he is wrong. We have to stand up for women against sexual abuse.

        But, not so much when it is Clinton.

        Like I wrote Adam, if proof comes out (not he said, she said) then skewer him. Right now they are only allegations and giving who they are comin from, their history and their ties to Democrats, this is suspect.

        As for who you would rather face, you libs always tell us this crap. If you had your way you would have Hillary in a primary against Obama.

        • Adam says:

          “The amazing thing is the number of liberals…”

          What is amazing is how all you can figure out is that this must be liberals attacking (lynching, as if it’s not offensive to use the term just because Cain is black and in trouble) Cain when you can bet a lot this stuff is coming from establishment Republicans.

          “As for who you would rather face, you libs always tell us this crap. If you had your way you would have Hillary in a primary against Obama.”

          Right, just like how Joe Biden dropped out of the race at the last minute. Oh, that never happened? Democrats love Obama. Certainly not to the degree that we loved him when we first elected him. But to suggest we regret Obama being in power or we want Hillary instead? Fantasy.

  11. Big Dog says:

    You lost your credibility in this issue by claiming the phony Clinton accusations. Politico has not made details available. It is not uncommon for a woman to accuse and for it to be settled (regardless of merit) to avoid the cost of a lawsuit. If the NRA settled it and Cain did not sign the settlement then how is he involved?

    Clinton had three accuse him of sexual assault including rape and two who said they had consentual affairs. He called those two liars and they were not telling the truth (Monica and Flowers). The others were attacked by the liberal media and the Clinton apologists. The allegations have as much merit as those against Cain but were deemed baseless by the liberals.

    Good for the goose.

    You lost your credibility by showing your true hypocrisy when you made that statement.

    Several people claiimed to have gay affairs. Should those have gotten as much scrutiny as the allegations against Cain? I don’t really care but good for the goose…

    • Adam says:

      “You lost your credibility in this issue by claiming the phony Clinton accusations.”

      You simply read it wrong. I did not call the Clinton scandals phony. That was just an ambiguous statement on my part. The phony was for Obama. For all Obama’s issues (both real and imagined) up to now there is zero evidence of anything funky going on in his love life. Clinton has multiple moral failings both in the past and even as recently as the 2008 election. I’m sure there are made up things about Clinton’s sexual history but at this point who can tell truth from fiction and that’s Clinton’s fault.

  12. Big Dog says:

    But let’s face it, you guys like to lynch the ones who are not on the liberal plantation.

  13. victoria says:

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47438 David Axelrod’s Pattern of Sexual Misbehavior
    Very interesting