Our First Retarded President?

Dixie said:
You are just flat out WRONG. The term "neocon" had not even been invented when Clinton was governor of Arkansas. So where you get it was "neocons" taking something as truth, I fucking have no idea. Gennifer Flowers held a press conference and stated that she had an affair with Clinton, and Clinton went on TV with Hillary and confessed to it! No one had proclaimed him guilty at that point, and even if they had.... HE WAS GUILTY! HE ADMITTED IT!

I recall, all through the Ken Starr investigations, one Republican after another, going before the microphones to say... we shouldn't rush to judgement, we should let the independent prosecutor do his job... NONE OF THEM were presuming Clinton guilty of ANYTHING! Did some people SPECULATE that he MAY have been? SURE! And there is nothing wrong with speculating that Cain might be guilty, but that's a far cry from running around making sick jokes as if he has been tried and found guilty!

And I reject your assumption that a company giving a separation package is the same as a company paying someone off in a settlement. The NRA didn't "pay these women" there were two women, and they were given a separation agreement. And let's keep in mind when this all happened, it was around the time of Clarence Thomas, when Cain was vocally challenging the Clintons on Hillarycare! Who's to say these women weren't plants from the Clinton Dirty Tricks bucket? In any event, both claims were investigated and found to be BASELESS! DID YOU GET THAT PART... FOUND TO BE BASELESS!
Click to expand...

Unbelievable. The women were given settlements along with orders to keep their lips zipped about Cain's misconduct. Why hasn't anybody from the NRA challenged their stories about Cain's misconduct, and receiving settlements because of it? If the agreements were standard separation agreements, I'd expect the current NRA president to step up and call the women bald-faced liars, and clarify that the payoffs had nothing to do with sexual harassment.
 
christiefan915 said:
Nope, it's the same thing. I remember all the stories and pictures of Gennifer Flowers when Clinton was campaigning. There were no lawsuits before Clinton became president. If you can prove there were, I'd like to see them.
Click to expand...

Clinton was guilty. Period.
 
Alias said:
They are not "settlements". They were given "severance packages" to leave the company. They left. I will argue that the fact they left is an admission that their case was weak. There no criminal charges filed.
Click to expand...

Uh-huh, sure. They didn't get golden parachutes, what they received is chicken scratch in the scheme of things. Why isn't the NRA president making a statement about those "severance packages", if that's all they were? Why isn't anyone from the NRA saying that the women were in a round of layoffs, for example, and got a standard parting agreement?

Because there's more to it than just flattening middle management.
 
Alias said:
There were a number of women who made accusations against Clinton. Clinton admitted his dirty deed with Lewinsky. He confirmed that he's a sexual predator. Hillary knew about Jennifer Flowers and she lied and covered up the Lewinsky thiing also by saying it was a "vast right wing conspiracy". She was lying to us all because Hillary lived with him for all those years. She didn't find out he was a sexual predator when we did. LOL.
Click to expand...

Re-read my previous comment. Dixie said there were lawsuits filed over harassment and I replied that no lawsuits were filed until after Clinton became president. If you'd like to present evidence of earlier lawsuits, I'm waiting.
 
Alias said:
They are not "settlements". They were given "severance packages" to leave the company. They left. I will argue that the fact they left is an admission that their case was weak. There no criminal charges filed.
Click to expand...

Well surprise surprise, I found a statement from the NRA and they do NOT call the money "severance packages".

Statement from National Restaurant Association President and CEO Dawn Sweeney


(Washington, D.C.) The National Restaurant Association released the following statement today from President and CEO Dawn Sweeney:

“We have seen the statement Joel Bennett released earlier today on behalf of his client, a former employee of the Association. The Association consented to the release of that statement, at the request of Mr. Bennett’s client.

“Based upon the information currently available, we can confirm that more than a decade ago, in July 1999, Mr. Bennett’s client filed a formal internal complaint, in accordance with the Association’s existing policies prohibiting discrimination and harassment. Mr. Herman Cain disputed the allegations in the complaint. The Association and Mr. Bennett’s client subsequently entered into an agreement to resolve the matter, without any admission of liability. Mr. Cain was not a party to that agreement. The agreement contains mutual confidentiality obligations. Notwithstanding the Association’s ongoing policy of maintaining the privacy of all personnel matters, we have advised Mr. Bennett that we are willing to waive the confidentiality of this matter and permit Mr. Bennett’s client to comment. As indicated in Mr. Bennett’s statement, his client prefers not to be further involved with this matter and we will respect her decision.

“The Association has robust policies designed to ensure that employees with concerns may bring them forward for prompt investigation and resolution, without risk of retaliation. The Association is fully committed to equal employment opportunity and to an environment that is free from any discrimination or harassment.”

http://www.restaurant.org/pressroom/pressrelease/print/index.cfm?ID=2182
 
christiefan915 said:
Well surprise surprise, I found a statement from the NRA and they do NOT call the money "severance packages".

Statement from National Restaurant Association President and CEO Dawn Sweeney


(Washington, D.C.) The National Restaurant Association released the following statement today from President and CEO Dawn Sweeney:

“We have seen the statement Joel Bennett released earlier today on behalf of his client, a former employee of the Association. The Association consented to the release of that statement, at the request of Mr. Bennett’s client.

“Based upon the information currently available, we can confirm that more than a decade ago, in July 1999, Mr. Bennett’s client filed a formal internal complaint, in accordance with the Association’s existing policies prohibiting discrimination and harassment. Mr. Herman Cain disputed the allegations in the complaint. The Association and Mr. Bennett’s client subsequently entered into an agreement to resolve the matter, without any admission of liability. Mr. Cain was not a party to that agreement. The agreement contains mutual confidentiality obligations. Notwithstanding the Association’s ongoing policy of maintaining the privacy of all personnel matters, we have advised Mr. Bennett that we are willing to waive the confidentiality of this matter and permit Mr. Bennett’s client to comment. As indicated in Mr. Bennett’s statement, his client prefers not to be further involved with this matter and we will respect her decision.

“The Association has robust policies designed to ensure that employees with concerns may bring them forward for prompt investigation and resolution, without risk of retaliation. The Association is fully committed to equal employment opportunity and to an environment that is free from any discrimination or harassment.”

http://www.restaurant.org/pressroom/pressrelease/print/index.cfm?ID=2182
Click to expand...


Its on no value and little importance what they were called...agreement, settlement, severance package......whatever your personal preference demands....

It was not in a court of law and there was no criminal or civil action before a judge that would have put a legal name to the event.....so call it what you want.

Agreement and settlement mean exactly the same thing in this case and severance is suitable because they did leave employment for a sum of money.....

 
christiefan915 said:
Unbelievable. The women were given settlements along with orders to keep their lips zipped about Cain's misconduct. Why hasn't anybody from the NRA challenged their stories about Cain's misconduct, and receiving settlements because of it? If the agreements were standard separation agreements, I'd expect the current NRA president to step up and call the women bald-faced liars, and clarify that the payoffs had nothing to do with sexual harassment.
Click to expand...

As you know, there is also contemporaneous corroboration from other people. If a woman claims she was raped 10 years ago for instance, that claim gains a lot of credibility if someone steps forward and says they saw her shortly afterwards and she confided the rape and they witnessed her emotional state, etc.

There's very little reason to doubt these charges. I think women know how this works. And a lot of men do too. Which is why the only morons you see defending Cain are bottom of the barrel like USFree (who appears by his writing skill to have a 6th grade education), Dixie, and Alias.

You don't see Cawacko and Superfreak defending Cain do you? No one with any brains in other words. Just the cretins. The stuff you wipe from the bottom of your shoe.
 
“A manly man don’t want it piled high with vegetables!” Cain exclaimed. “He would call that a sissy pizza.”

The next President of the United States if benighted partisan lunatics like Dixie could have their way.

Says it all.
 
Teabagger love of Mandingo is hitting the iceberg.
They will defend thier one black friend until his ratings are below Ron Paul's
 
bravo said:
Its on no value and little importance what they were called...agreement, settlement, severance package......whatever your personal preference demands....

It was not in a court of law and there was no criminal or civil action before a judge that would have put a legal name to the event.....so call it what you want.

Agreement and settlement mean exactly the same thing in this case and severance is suitable because they did leave employment for a sum of money.....
Click to expand...

I'm not the one quibbling about terminology, righties are. I called it a settlement from the start. What the NRA did isn't unique in harassment cases, especially the part that demands the women keep quiet about what happened. I'm sure there have been dozens if not hundreds of termination agreements from the NRA for reasons other than harassment, it's SOP in the business world when people move on. But how many of those agreements have confidentiality clauses? Those clauses are usually inserted when the company doesn't want the former employee to discuss trade secrets or other related business with a new employer.

The whole issue stinks to high heaven, women being paid off to leave the NRA with the caveat that they keep their mouths shut about it.

Of course Cain denies everything. That puts him squarely in the camp of Clinton, Edwards, Gingrich, Craig, Weiner and every other public figure whose secret sexual transgressions came to light.

I'll wager that almost 100% of working women understand and can empathize with Kraushaar, Bialek, etc. It's the men who seem to have trouble in figuring out when a line's been crossed.
 
christiefan915 said:
I'm not the one quibbling about terminology, righties are. I called it a settlement from the start. What the NRA did isn't unique in harassment cases, especially the part that demands the women keep quiet about what happened. I'm sure there have been dozens if not hundreds of termination agreements from the NRA for reasons other than harassment, it's SOP in the business world when people move on. But how many of those agreements have confidentiality clauses? Those clauses are usually inserted when the company doesn't want the former employee to discuss trade secrets or other related business with a new employer.

The whole issue stinks to high heaven, women being paid off to leave the NRA with the caveat that they keep their mouths shut about it.

Of course Cain denies everything. That puts him squarely in the camp of Clinton, Edwards, Gingrich, Craig, Weiner and every other public figure whose secret sexual transgressions came to light.

I'll wager that almost 100% of working women understand and can empathize with Kraushaar, Bialek, etc. It's the men who seem to have trouble in figuring out when a line's been crossed.
Click to expand...

I'll wager that every woman has a different line to cross. Some women feel they've been harassed when they wear revealing clothing, spend gross amounts of money to look and smell good, bend over deliberately to show their cleavage, and then when they get attention they act like they've been raped. If you don't want it, then don't advertise. This is just a game to a lot of women. I'll wager that.
 
Alias said:
I'll wager that every woman has a different line to cross. Some women feel they've been harassed when they wear revealing clothing, spend gross amounts of money to look and smell good, bend over deliberately to show their cleavage, and then when they get attention they act like they've been raped. If you don't want it, then don't advertise. This is just a game to a lot of women. I'll wager that.
Click to expand...

No no ladies - I saw him first!
 
Ok, lets get some legal points out of the way first. Settlements are settlements whether something is filed or not. Thousands of legal disputes are solved in settlements without a single legal paper being filed. In Jones v. Clinton, Clinton settled with Jones for $850,000. The settlement also required that she drop the suit against him and Clinton admit no wrong doing and issue no apology. In essence, Clinton was found to have committed no sexual harassment. Clinton's undoing was his legal team. He should have answered all questions about Monica Lewinski honestly. They could not have been used in the Jones case, as, per the rules of evidence, evidence of a consensual sexual relationship, even one started in the work place is not admissible as evidence of sexual harassment. Before answering the questions, Clinton's team should have asked the judge to place a gag order specifically around the deposition, sealed the answers, and then hear arguments on if they were relevant to the sexual harassment claim. He should have sued his attorney's for malpractice.
 
All that being said, do we really believe that Clinton didn't do something boorish to Paula Jones? Was it sufficient to prove sexual harassment? If he did what she says he did then probably. But only real kool-aid drinkers think that there was no fire creating all that smoke. The ARA had to settle with TWO women for their claims against Cain. That is one more than Clinton has ever settled. Things that make you go Hmmmmmmm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top