On 11/2/2011 10:58 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Another day...another woman coming forward with evidence that Horny
Old Herman groped her.

Who would have thought?

What's next...Herman's Teddy Bear "If You SHow Me Yours I Will Show
You Mine" outing Horny Old Herman?

Laugh..laugh..laugh..

TMT

WASHINGTON (AP) — A third former employee considered filing a
workplace complaint against Herman Cain over what she deemed
aggressive and unwanted behavior when she and Cain, now a Republican
presidential candidate, worked together during the late 1990s, the
woman told The Associated Press on Wednesday. She said the behavior
included a private invitation to his corporate apartment.

The woman said he made sexually suggestive remarks or gestures about
the same time that two co-workers had settled separate harassment
complaints against Cain, who was then the head of the National
Restaurant Association.

She did not file a formal complaint because she began having fewer
interactions with Cain, she said. Afterward, she learned that a co-
worker — one of the two women whose accusations have rocked Cain's
campaign this week — had already done so. She said she would have had
to file if they hadn't.

What evidence? She now makes a claim, but gives an excuse for not filing
one then?

What is that evidence of?

David

On 11/3/2011 12:18 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Nov 3, 3:58 am, "David R. wrote:
On 11/2/2011 10:58 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:





Another day...another woman coming forward with evidence that Horny
Old Herman groped her.

Who would have thought?

What's next...Herman's Teddy Bear "If You SHow Me Yours I Will Show
You Mine" outing Horny Old Herman?

Laugh..laugh..laugh..

TMT

WASHINGTON (AP) — A third former employee considered filing a
workplace complaint against Herman Cain over what she deemed
aggressive and unwanted behavior when she and Cain, now a Republican
presidential candidate, worked together during the late 1990s, the
woman told The Associated Press on Wednesday. She said the behavior
included a private invitation to his corporate apartment.

The woman said he made sexually suggestive remarks or gestures about
the same time that two co-workers had settled separate harassment
complaints against Cain, who was then the head of the National
Restaurant Association.

She did not file a formal complaint because she began having fewer
interactions with Cain, she said. Afterward, she learned that a co-
worker — one of the two women whose accusations have rocked Cain's
campaign this week — had already done so. She said she would have had
to file if they hadn't.

What evidence? She now makes a claim, but gives an excuse for not filing
one then?

What is that evidence of?

David- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

LOL..spin all you want...it doesn't change the FACT that money was
paid to shut several women up so they would not go public with
continued sexual harassment from Herman "The Prevert" Cain.

More likely, it was thought cheaper to settle a claim than waste money
on defending a lawsuit.

Vote for Cain...if you approve of sexual harassment of women.

Or if you liked the way Clinton treated women.

Also interesting how you trimmed the distribution list...trying to
censor this discussion to hide the fact that Cain is an abuser?

No, unlike you, I don't cross post.

David

On 11/3/2011 7:24 PM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:


So you are saying that Cain's reputation is worth only a small amount
of money.

No, I'm saying the corporate lawyers have a better grasp of reality than
you do. Of course, anyone has a better grasp of reality than you do.

I would agree.

Clinton is a nonissue here...he is not running for President.

So you're saying sexual harassment was OK then, but not now.

And besides your attempt and failure to successfully impeach him
proves that it doesn't mattter here.

I didn't impeach him. I don't care where he put his dick. Considering
his wife, he didn't either. That whole lying under oath thing is why he
was impeached, not Monica.

No...you just like to censor.

? What do you think I censored?

I would have supported the Senate censuring WJC, though.

Afraid of free speech?

Nope, although your abuse of it might be annoying if I cared about what
you say.

David