published Saturday, October 20th, 2012

The Binder

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

103
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
TOES02800 said...

Every executive has binders of prospective employees. Or at least the digital equivalent. So what's the big deal? Could it be that Obama has nothing but a bad record to run on. Do you really think this old bullsh-t "war on women" thing is going to work? Ask Hillary, who's still bloody from the toss under the bus who's waging the war on women. (though being a die-hard partisan, she'll cave and say she had it coming). Such a good girl. Now go lay down.

October 20, 2012 at 12:47 a.m.
dude_abides said...

Outstanding. The truth hurts.

October 20, 2012 at 1:11 a.m.
miraweb said...

Excellent, Clay!

October 20, 2012 at 1:34 a.m.
EaTn said...

I can understand the candidates' hypocrisy, which is nothing new--it's the hypocritical Christian family-values voters that blow my mind.

October 20, 2012 at 5:09 a.m.
ZenPunk said...

Tu qoque, why do you come here day after day tilting at windmills?

You're here on every comic Bennett posts, vigorously dismissing Bennett and his cartoons in every detail and railing wildly against anything you dimly perceive to be "liberal." If you truly hold Bennett and his readership in such contempt, why come back?

Who the hell are you talking to?

October 20, 2012 at 5:31 a.m.
degage said...

Talking of binders, what about Obama's binder of muslims. seems he wanted more muslims as adminisration staffers. chicago tribune.

October 20, 2012 at 6:13 a.m.
conservative said...

Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night. He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..

October 20, 2012 at 7:28 a.m.
fairmon said...

Does the persistent reference to DesJarlais suggest a high number of TFP subscriptions in the 4th district? Assuming the reports and articles are reasonably accurate it doesn't seem anyone condones the acts or hypocrisy if pro-life has always been his position. Is the persistence an attempt to influence 4th district voters or is it to generate a high response in the forum on the pro-choice and pro-life issue? What is left to be said about Desjarlais? I haven't seen any indication anyone has changed their personal views on the issue of abort or not to abort.

October 20, 2012 at 8:19 a.m.
fairmon said...

What would you do? What is a logical approach to preventing unwanted pregnancies?

o Legalize prostitution, regulate and tax it.

o Make birth control education and methods free, available and easily obtainable. Include free sterilization for males and females.

o The law is pro-choice. Encourage those unable to afford a kid to have an abortion in the first trimester.

o Tax payer funded abortions, which means the individual cannot afford one, should include sterilization.

o Provide DNA testing to identify the father and have them be financially responsible for any associated expense including the womans choice of abortion. Severe penalties for non-compliance even if financially not able to fulfill the obligation.

October 20, 2012 at 8:39 a.m.
ricardo said...

Only Republican men know what's best for women and their health. Only Mormon men can preach their faith. Romney needed a special search party to find qualified women to serve when he was governor. He just wants their vote, but could care less about their issues. Keep them wimmin in the kitchin barefoot and pregnant. LMFAO

October 20, 2012 at 8:51 a.m.
ricardo said...

harp3339 said..."What would you do? What is a logical approach to preventing unwanted pregnancies?"

That's a lot of government intervention there, harp. Not what a true libertarian would condone.

October 20, 2012 at 8:59 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Democrats degrade women by assuming that women only care about birth control and abortion. That women only think with their collective uterus. You democrats out there are grasping at straws in a hay field, hoping that something catches on.

Didn't you try this "war on women" thing before? How about the "Bain is evil" thing? Hell, you even tried the "Romney killed my sick wife" thing! Remember, it's the "trend that matters"! And it's been trending Romney for weeks now. Even Pennsylvania is in play.

Obama needs something big. Will he bomb something before the end of October? I wouldn't put it past him. He watched "wag the dog" too you know.

October 20, 2012 at 9:09 a.m.
librul said...

Good ome, Clay.

I wonder if his opponent has the cojones to get people out holding up signs saying "Honk if you had an affair with DesJarlais".

I also wonder if promoting hypocrisy has become a plank in the Republican platform.

October 20, 2012 at 9:12 a.m.
mymy said...

Dr. Harp is losing it.

October 20, 2012 at 9:23 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Obama camp full of fear. Watch out for the dirtiest of tricks to be pulled in the next 2 weeks. chicago thugs working overtime on this one. Book it.

October 20, 2012 at 9:38 a.m.
ricardo said...

17 days to go until the re-election of Barack Obama.

Muhammad Romney is a Muslim.

October 20, 2012 at 9:41 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

ricardo. nah, that would help him with the left.

October 20, 2012 at 10:06 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Obama Campaign Borrows $15M from Bank of America Warren Buffett invested $5B in BofA last year

Desperate times seek desperate measures.

Poor little baby Barry had to borrow money from his rich daddy. How sweet.

October 20, 2012 at 10:09 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

MSNBC Host 'Lucky' to Get Paid Half as Much as Her Male Co-Host

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/msnbc-host-lucky-get-paid-half-much-her-male-co-host_654987.html

I wonder if librul thinks this is hypocrisy.

October 20, 2012 at 10:12 a.m.
mymy said...

The Obama Binder = Failed Policies both domestic and foreign (except in his/the cult’s heads) = Failed Presidency = Nothing to run on but little things like binders/Romnesia (LOL funny/silly) = Obama has to go!!

17 Days to Go!

It is still the economy/jobs/foreign policy/direction of country/National Security here/abroad and the growing debt.

Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock

Romney/Ryan 2012

October 20, 2012 at 10:15 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

You know the southpaws are grasping when they use the binder thing as an issue. Turn out the lights. LMAO

October 20, 2012 at 10:21 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Whistle-blower audio: Sen. Claire McCaskill’s husband cut business deals in Senate Dining Room

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/18/whistle-blower-audio-sen-claire-mccaskills-husband-cut-business-deals-in-senate-dining-room/#ixzz29qhgwSiT

Move along folks! Nothing to see here!

October 20, 2012 at 10:21 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

At least Bennett knows what a binder is, unlike most of the msm.

I suppose Clay has a binder full of ex boy toys sitting in a prominent location next to his drawing table.

October 20, 2012 at 10:24 a.m.
hotdiggity said...

Harp, as you know the subject of abortion is a very contentious issue in the district. Family and Christian values as well as the perceived character of a candidate also rank high when deciding on a representative in the area. Mr. DesJarlais's egregious breach of his stated core principles should be at the forefront of any discussion regarding his representing the district. The voters should be constantly reminded of the record of someone they may choose to represent their interests especially on an issue as divisive as adultery, abortion, and character.

October 20, 2012 at 10:25 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Big bird makes more money than Romney does

"Yep, that one-percenter Big Bird makes about four times what Mitt Romney does annually and yet Barack Obama still wants you and I to still carry his freight"

"Shows like Sesame Street are multi-million dollar enterprises capable of thriving in the private market. According to the 990 tax form all nonprofits are required to file, Sesame Workshop President and CEO Gary Knell received $956,513 -- nearly a million dollars -- in compensation in 2008. And, from 2003 to 2006, "Sesame Street" made more than $211 million from toy and consumer product sales".

http://www.reflector.com/greenville-news-board/big-birds-big-money-1247131

October 20, 2012 at 10:30 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Brain dead liberal college brats on Benghazi.

Obama event goers on Benghazi: What?!?

October 20, 2012 at 10:37 a.m.
TOES02800 said...

Alpo Jr.

OSU Student: We need a one-party Obama dictatorship!

October 20, 2012 at 10:42 a.m.
mymy said...

Jack_Dennis said...

"You know the southpaws are grasping when they use the binder thing as an issue. Turn out the lights. LMAO"

Add to that 'Romnesia' = Romney fires back that the 'silly word games' is evidence Obama campaign has run out of ideas. LOL

October 20, 2012 at 10:46 a.m.
tderng said...

The faux outrage about the binders is just plain STUPID.This just shows how desperate the Obama campaign is. They are slinging everything they can find against the Romney wall,praying something sticks. Unfortunately for the left the American people are beginning to see through this President,and his campaign of misinformation and lies.He STILL has no vision for our future beyond "re-elect me and I can fix everything I was unable to fix before." He has laid out no plans for the next term IF he wins.What is he gonna do beyond taxing the rich? The tax increases he has promoted won't do a thing for our economy. So please Democrats tell me what he's gonna do in his next term? Anything?Will he waste billions more on failed green energy projects here and in other countries? Will he interfere in another mid-east country and allow it to go to the Muslim Brotherhood? What ally will he toss under the bus in his next term? I'm betting on Israel.

October 20, 2012 at 11:09 a.m.
dude_abides said...

BigRidgePatriot said... "I suppose Clay has a binder full of ex boy toys sitting in a prominent location next to his drawing table."

See, BRP, this is reason you don't get any traction when you try to get serious in here. One day you're the 'sage conservative' and the next you're the middle school bully with a conflicted sexuality. Do you think Clay needs a spanking, BRP? lol

October 20, 2012 at 11:12 a.m.
dude_abides said...

Mitt can't fool all of the people all of the time, but some of the people are willing to fool themselves, and therein lies the danger. Hopefully, enough women in this country will refuse to go through the next 4 years with 'binders' on.

October 20, 2012 at 11:25 a.m.
jesse said...

DUDE, i think you just nailed BRP'S carcass to the barn door! I HATE to give you kudo's BUT when your right your right!!(11:12 post.)

October 20, 2012 at 11:33 a.m.
mymy said...

Dude/Jesse: Obama policies are blowing up in his face. When reasonable/informed people go in that voting booth, it will not depend on whether they are male, female, gay, Hispanic, black, white, a D or an R ,etc. the economy will be on their mind. The Obama Brainwashed Cult crowd are clueless!

October 20, 2012 at 11:43 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Notes from MountainLaurel's Binder:

American women earn approximately 23 percent less than American men.

Republicans opposed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which made it easier for women to file pay discrimination lawsuits. Romney said he would not appeal it, but that was yesterday.

Paycheck Fairness Act – Democrats support it and Republicans oppose it. Mitt Romney is currently in hiding. He may or may not support it - probably not.

Mitt Romney likes to fire people: Has boasted that he is planning to issue lots of pink slips to public employees; majority of public employee jobs are held by women.

Romney has said that he loves the “marvelous” Ryan budget, which ends Medicare; Starts a token voucher program; Throws between 14 million to 27 million people off of Medicaid, around two thirds of these people would be women.

Romney has vowed to repeal Affordable Care Act, which means approximately 17 million women due to get health coverage under the law will remain uninsured.

Romney applauded Repubican House budget that cut childcare and reduced food and health care assistance for about 20 million children. He said it was "responsible."

October 20, 2012 at 12:02 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Obama White house= women make 18% less than their male counterparts.

"American women earn approximately 23 percent less than American men"....WITH OBAMA AS PRESIDENT!!

October 20, 2012 at 12:38 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Obama emphasis on “Binders” best sign yet for Romney

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-emphasis-on-binders-best-sign-yet-for-romney/article/2511164#.UILUR8XA88g

Obviously "binders and big bird" are much more important issues to Obama and you liberals than say....the deficit...or Benghazi....or.............

October 20, 2012 at 12:44 p.m.
jesse said...

My My,you missed the point!

It just flew right by yuu w/o making a dent!

go back and REREAD the exchange and THEN spout off!

October 20, 2012 at 12:50 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Not fond of the term "red herring". But the binders deal is as good of an example as any. It's sooo weak. Please left wing losers, pick a real issue.

October 20, 2012 at 12:50 p.m.
mymy said...

Liberal women here prove that many have a long way to go. Not smart enough to figure out when they are being lied too and how to list priorities by importance in the real world.

October 20, 2012 at 12:52 p.m.
dude_abides said...

"Not fond of the term "red herring"." - Herr Goering

October 20, 2012 at 12:59 p.m.
fairmon said...

ricardo said... harp3339 said..."What would you do? What is a logical approach to preventing unwanted pregnancies?"

That's a lot of government intervention there, harp. Not what a true libertarian would condone.

You are correct ricardo....

1-I don't claim to be "a libertarian" although I do like their platform better than either party. Most within the parties are afraid to stray very far from the teat.

2-The proposals could all be local and state initiatives. There is no justification for the federal government to be involved in many of the issues they intervene in.

Do you ever wonder why people think we elect the more intelligent among us to congress and the somewhat less intelligent to state office? That is not an accurate belief however, I can see that mentality when looking at local leadership but they don't claim to be real smart and run from difficult or unpopular issues.

October 20, 2012 at 1:02 p.m.
mymy said...

By Mark Levin

Folks, I was an Associate Director of Presidential Personnel for a little over a year in the Reagan administration. We would gather resumes of individuals interested in non-career positions throughout the administration, computerize the information, and make the names available throughout the government. We also solicited resumes from prominent individuals who we wanted to recruit for positions in the administration and process them as well.

Most often, when President Reagan wanted to fill a senior administration position, including cabinet and sub-cabinet positions, top agency posts, and judicial positions, we would put together a binder filled with qualified candidates, as well as recommendations, from which the president would select a candidate.

So, I have a question: how, exactly, did and does Obama decide who to appoint to over 3,000 non-career positions in his administration, including his senior positions? How does his Office of Presidential Personnel recruit candidates? How does it process and collate resumes and present options to the president for selecting candidates for top posts? And if President Obama is not presented with a binder of qualified candidates, exactly how does he make his decisions?

October 20, 2012 at 1:03 p.m.
dude_abides said...

mymy... "liberal women here" leave you in their wake. They leave you bobbing in the flotsam and jetsam, with mismatched swimmies, flip flops dangling over the edge of your inner tube, with a souvenir Wendy's cup in your hand.

October 20, 2012 at 1:09 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Since democrats tend to vote in "alphabetical order" a candidate whose name begins with "S" would stand little chance with an opponent beginning with "D"

October 20, 2012 at 1:19 p.m.
limric said...

Mitt may have binders full of women, but the binder containing ANY policy outlines or plans is empty.

Keep in mind that ridiculing the idiotic binders comment and the Obomney/ Ryan 1% dog and pony show as a whole is good sport. But remember, the rest of the Republican ‘party of values’ is just as funny as DesJarlais. Although to be honest, Scott DesJarlais’ statement, “I used stark language to push the woman to admit she wasn't pregnant” is a classic - much like Tommy Chong’s line, “I merely found these drugs, and was on my way to the police station to turn them in.”

Some of the other comedians sashaying about in Washington are: Rep. Loy “Why didn’t Jesus condemn it” defender of the slave trade Mauch. GOP candidate Charlie “Death penalty for crappy kids and sterilization for crappy parents” Fuqua. Paul “Evolution and the big bang theory are lies straight from the pit of Hell." Broun. And Rep. Tod “legitimate rape” Akin. Both of which are members of the House Science Committee. Whoo man!

So let’s take a breather from Obomney and his tax cuts for the 1% or his serial lying or the fact that he doesn’t believe in anything other than he **‘really really wants to be president’. The GOP offers much more comedic entertainment than you ever realized. Because after all – they are a joke.

**Thanks Alprova

October 20, 2012 at 1:28 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

dude_: keep trying, Comrade. Eventually you'll be funny. How's that hammer & sickle flag working out for you?

October 20, 2012 at 1:49 p.m.
fairmon said...

mymy said...

Dr. Harp is losing it.

mymy....You think so? How else will the proliferation of a dependent society ever been slowed down?

I guess instead of abortion we could increase the effort to find good parents able to support the kids to adopt them. We could assure the mother when the kid was old enough it would know who she was and have it explained that their mom was forced to have sex (rape, incest etc.) or that she enjoyed sex so much she couldn't stop herself but she couldn't afford to provide for them.

Or, keep doing what we are doing until the number dependent and the amount needed is greater than the providers can provide.

October 20, 2012 at 1:50 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

More notes from MountainLaurel’s Binder:

Republican politicians like Paul Ryan and presidential candidate Mitt Romney believe that U.S. politicians should make reproductive decisions – not women.

Republican politicians believe that health-insurance companies should be able to discriminate and charge women higher insurance premiums because they are women.

Mitt Romney has pledged to overturn the Affordable Care Act, a law that provides tremendous health and economic benefits for women, including access to birth control, cancer screenings without co-pays, guaranteed direct access to ob/gyn providers without referrals, and an end to discriminatory practices against women by the health insurance industry.

Republican politicians support health insurance companies’ claims that health related issues like C-section, rape, and domestic violence are pre-existing health conditions.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has promised to “get rid” of the federal funding for Planned Parenthood health centers, which are used to provide much needed birth control and cancer screenings to millions of women in the U.S.

October 20, 2012 at 2:16 p.m.
rick1 said...

MntLaurel why are you not upset with Obama paying women less then men after signing the Lilly Ledbetter Act?

http://freebeacon.com/hostile-workplace/

Your comment "American women earn approximately 23 percent less ithan American men" is a false statement.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/330712/obama-and-romney-wage-gap-diana-furchtgott-roth

October 20, 2012 at 2:35 p.m.
tipper said...

I see all the red-meat conservatives and reactionaries are out in full force today playing fast and loose with the truth. I guess there is nothing a Republican could do that would matter. Go vote your choice, save your breath, and we'll see how it all comes out sometime in November. No one is going to change anyone's mind or alter anyone's opinion at this point.

October 20, 2012 at 2:59 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Rick1 says: "Your comment "American women earn approximately 23 percent less ithan American men" is a false statement."

Thanks, Rick1, but I trust the Institute for Women's Policy Research:

"Women are almost half of the workforce. They are the equal, if not main, breadwinner in four out of ten families. They receive more college and graduate degrees than men. Yet, on average, women continue to earn considerably less than men. In 2010, female full-time workers made only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men, a gender wage gap of 23 percent. Women, on average, earn less than men in virtually every single occupation for which there is sufficient earnings data for both men and women to calculate an earnings ratio.

IWPR tracks the gender wage gap over time in a series of fact sheets updated annually. According to our research, if change continues at the same slow pace as it has done for the past fifty years, it will take almost another fifty—or until 2056—for women to finally reach pay parity. IWPR’s project on sex and race discrimination in the workplace shows that outright discrimination in pay, hiring, or promotions continues to be a significant feature of working life."

http://www.iwpr.org/initiatives/pay-equity-and-discrimination

October 20, 2012 at 3:16 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

I agree . . . Slinky and Paul Ryan advocate A World of Harm for Women:

“If Mitt Romney and his vice-presidential running mate, Representative Paul Ryan, were to win next month’s election, the harm to women’s reproductive rights would extend far beyond the borders of the United States.

In this country, they would support the recriminalization of abortion with the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and they would limit access to contraception and other services. But they have also promised to promote policies abroad that would affect millions of women in the world’s poorest countries, where lack of access to contraception, prenatal care and competent help at childbirth often results in serious illness and thousands of deaths yearly. . .

Mr. Romney has pledged that, on his first day in the White House, he would reinstate the “global gag rule,” the odious restriction that has been used to deny federal money for family-planning work abroad to any organization that provided information, advice, referrals or services for legal abortion or supported the legalization of abortion, even using its own money.

Merely talking about abortion could cost groups not only federal money, but also useful technical support and American-donated supplies of contraceptives, including condoms for distribution in the communities they serve.

The gag rule, also known as the “Mexico City policy,” was imposed by the last three Republican presidents, beginning with Ronald Reagan in 1984. It was rescinded by President Bill Clinton in 1993, then reinstated by President George W. Bush in 2001. President Obama, fulfilling a campaign pledge, signed an executive order lifting the global gag rule shortly after taking office in 2009.

The gag rule did nothing to prevent use of government financing for abortions because that was already illegal under federal law. But it badly hampered the work of family-planning groups overseas, forcing clinic closures, reduced services and fee increases. It also violated principles of informed consent by requiring health care providers to withhold medical information from female patients. And, by stifling political debate on abortion-related issues and violating free speech principles, the gag rule badly undermined America’s credibility as it tries to promote democracy abroad.

Republican opponents of family planning and women’s reproductive autonomy in Congress have been trying to reinstate the gag rule by legislation. If elected, Mr. Romney has said he would do so with a stroke of the pen.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/20/opinion/a-potential-world-of-harm-for-women.html

October 20, 2012 at 3:35 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"...the binders deal is as good of an example as any. It's sooo weak. Please left wing losers, pick a real issue." J_D

You mean like voter fraud, Obama's birth certificate, Planned Parenthood, and Big Bird? Sorry, JD, I guess we just lost focus and got off-point from those "real" issues.

October 20, 2012 at 4:09 p.m.
rick1 said...

MtnLaurel of course you would provide the liberal Institute for Women's Policy Research as your source.

I notice you did not answer my question why you do not have a problem with Obama paying females less then males? How does the Institute for Women's Policy Research feel about that? I bet they did not even address it.

October 20, 2012 at 4:11 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

A SONG FROM MountainLaurel's Binder:

Tu_quoque could wile away the hours

Conferrin' with the flowers

Consultin' with the rain

And his head he'd be scratchin'

While his thoughts were busy hatchin'

If he only had a brain

He'd unravel any riddle

For any individ'le

In trouble or in pain

With the thoughts Tu_quoque be thinkin'

He could be another Lincoln

If he only had a brain

Oh, he would tell you why

The ocean's near the shore

He could think of things he never thunk before

And then he’d sit and think some more

He would not be just a nuffin'

His head all full of stuffin'

His heart all full of pain

He would dance and be merry

Life would be a ding-a-derry

If he only had a brain

October 20, 2012 at 4:11 p.m.
ibshame said...

"tu_quoque said... “According to the White House calendar, there is no public record of President Barack Obama attending his daily intelligence briefing--known as the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB)--in the week leading up to the attacks on the U.S. embassy in Cairo and the murder of U.S. Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens and three American members of his staff”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/12/Exclusive-Obama-Skipped-Intel-Briefings-Week-Before-Embassy-Attacks"

It's obvious most of the crap you post from your right wing rags like the one above is the best you can do. For all of your bullsh*t ignorance clearly you are easy pickings for anyone who has ever bothered to stay informed. You say President Obama skipped an intelligence briefing? O.k. maybe he did but see here is the rub. When you want to speak about skipping intelligence briefings let us not forget the MAJOR PIECE OF INTELLIGENCE GEORGE W. BUSH received in August, 2001, to paraphrase BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO LAUNCH AN ATTACK INSIDE THE U.S.

Of course I'm sure you have some bullsh*t response to that as per your usual stupid, dumbazz responses but it's clear the attack on Libya is not the equivalent of Bin Laden's attack on the WTC, the Pentagon and the spoiled attempt OF FLIGHT 93 to attack the CAPITOL. As President Obama said to John Stewart(who by the way was the one to use the term OPTIMAL first)no loss of life is OPTIMAL. However, for all the wing nuts like yourself to try and make this the equivalent of Bush's failure to act (when he had INTELLIGENCE HANDED TO HIM A FULL MONTH BEFORE 9/11 INDICATING BIN LADEN WAS HEAVILY INVOLVED IN PLANNING AN ATTACK INSIDE THE U.S.) is ridiculous and will eventually backfire on the wing nuts who will eventually either STFU or find them some other issue to try and make Mitt Romney seem less than the incompetant idiot he is when it comes to foreign policy. Running an Olympics is not FOREIGN POLICY.

October 20, 2012 at 4:13 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

laurel: You suppose Romney/Ryan would be for opening internment camps for women?

October 20, 2012 at 4:19 p.m.
ibshame said...

DesJarlais is the subject of Stephen Colbert's Alpha Dog segment.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/420305/october-17-2012/alpha-dog-of-the-week---scott-desjarlais

Even Colbert knows DesJarlais is a joke now.

October 20, 2012 at 4:21 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

12 year old girl shoots home intruder.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/12-year-old-girl-home-alone-uses-family-gun-to-shoot-intruder/

This sure does not fit the gun control crowd's template. I wonder if I can find this story mentioned on CNN...

October 20, 2012 at 4:37 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Jack_Dennis asked: "You suppose Romney/Ryan would be for opening internment camps for women?"

Since the Republicans have declared war on women, I suppose it’s a possibility, especially if Slinky and Ryan can figure out a way to profit. . . Why you are asking, Jack? . . . Are you planning on submitting a resume or something?

October 20, 2012 at 4:41 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Those freedom loving Egyptians attack another female reporter...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/20/sonia-dridi-cairo-reporte_n_1992647.html

Animals

October 20, 2012 at 4:47 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Do you think you "own" your land?

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/allodial-titles-land-patents/blog-27077/

"U.S. citizens have entered adhesion contracts with the federal United States government under the 14th Amendment whereby their unalienable rights to own land absolutely in an allodial state, have been reduced to a qualified ownership and "color of title" under the Negotiable Instruments law. In the twentieth century, America has returned to the dark ages of feudalism, its former "state" Citizens having been reduced to tenants and renters once again, not the sovereign owners of their land."

October 20, 2012 at 4:57 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Laurel, no I don't need a yob. Just wondered if it was one of your fears. How about an Executive Order requiring all tubal ligations be reversed? Possible?

October 20, 2012 at 5:31 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

BigRidgePatriot notes: Those freedom loving Egyptians attack another female reporter...Animals.”

Unfortunately, violence against women seems to occur in every country, BigRidgePatriot.

I noticed the Republicans continue to hold up the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act here in the U.S. They’re rejecting the extension of the law’s protections for women who are undocumented immigrants, Native Americans, LGBT, or students on campuses. Vice President Joe Biden drafted the original bill in 1994, and this year marks its 18th year anniversary.

“Since the landmark Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) became law 18 years ago today, VAWA has vastly improved our ability to address domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking and has helped countless victims of these crimes get access to needed services. It’s important to remember that none of this progress has been inevitable - it has been the result of the tireless work of advocates, law enforcement, prosecutors, and others. On the front lines of this effort, the Office on Violence Against Women administers VAWA programs, providing states, territories, local and tribal governments, and nonprofit organizations with critical resources to initiate and sustain efforts to reduce and stop violence against women. As Congress moves to consider reauthorizing this critical law, we urge lawmakers to come together on a bipartisan basis, as it has historically, to pass a VAWA reauthorization that expands rather than limits victim access to justice and strengthens law enforcement and prosecutorial tools to seek justice and hold violators accountable. VAWA has been strengthened each time it has been reauthorized, with bipartisan support, and this year after 18 years of progress, it should be no different.” [Attorney General Eric Holder]

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/September/12-ag-1109.html

October 20, 2012 at 5:34 p.m.
rick1 said...

Jack, notice how mountainlaurel will not answer the question on why she does not have a problem with Obama paying women less then males.

Funny how the liberal say the Republicans attack women yet it was Bill Clinton who threw Janet Reno under the bus on WACO and Obama threw Hillary under the bus with Libya.

CBS news correspondent Lara Logan was raped by a gang Muslims in Egypt while covering the over throw of Murbarik and CBS did not report the story until 5 days later after other news sources came out with it. Where was the outrage from the left? There wasn't any because the liberal agenda to cover the fact that women in the Middle East on a daily basis are raped, stoned to death, have their genitals mutilated would have not looked good for Obama's agenda of trying to convince us radical Muslims are loving and peaceful.

Women are nothing but collateral damage if they stand in the way of the liberal agenda.

October 20, 2012 at 5:39 p.m.
fairmon said...

mountainlaurel said....

And, by stifling political debate on abortion-related issues and violating free speech principles, the gag rule badly undermined America’s credibility as it tries to promote democracy abroad.

See the 8:39 a.m. post. When I read that I wonder why tax money is being spent "abroad" for or against abortion? Trying to influence people and trying to have them act the way some in America think they should may be why we are up to our ears in turmoil in the middle east and north Africa.

I just read a list of 50+ that would reduce spending by over 2 trillion the next ten years. There is zero to very little return on the spending listed annd it doesn't include millions in foregin aid.

October 20, 2012 at 5:44 p.m.
miraweb said...

Some idiot typed American Crossroads dug up . . .

Was this right before Karl Rove the wrote the check to Virginia's newest voter fraud felon or just after he paid the legal fees for Sproul to rename his operations after Florida fired him?

I just want to be sure I have the facts straight on this paragon of political virtue before I read any further.

October 20, 2012 at 5:49 p.m.
miraweb said...

Sheesh - you take one afternoon to look at the fall leaves and the whole nut-wing clan starts swirling around the plug hole.

Go outside for an hour. There's oxygen there.

And Jack - are you just trolling "binders" now?

October 20, 2012 at 5:53 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

rick1: well stated

Mira: Not understanding you.

October 20, 2012 at 6 p.m.
fairmon said...

ML are you not paid fairly as compared to males doing the same work with similar results?

Women with equal qualification, skill and ability that demonstrate they can produce equal to males in the same profession should be compensated equally. It is a legal requirement that they be paid equally when these conditions exist. Any female that thinks she is being discriminated against should file a complaint with the EEOC.

Your post of a 23% delta as reported by a female study group is probably a compilation of women's incomes compared to mens without regard for the KSA required or type work.

There are still examples of desparate treatment which is illegal. I doubt the 23% is an apples to apples comparison. Steel workers walking a beam fabricating a building are paid more than the retail clerks at the department store cosmetic counter. As unfair as it is higher pay is what attracts people to the higher skilled dangerous work. There are women electricians, oil rig workers, physicians, pharmacist and similar formerly all male jobs that are paid on the same scale as males.

October 20, 2012 at 6:04 p.m.
patriot1 said...

rick1...correct, liberals don't want solutions, they just want the issue

October 20, 2012 at 6:49 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

patriot1 also well stated

October 20, 2012 at 6:52 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Patriot1 said: “rick1...correct, liberals don't want solutions, they just want the issue.”

Since it was the Senate Republicans who recently blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act - a bill that would help to ensure that female employees are paid the same amount as their male counterparts - I’d say it is the other way around, Patriot1.

October 20, 2012 at 7:07 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Harp3339 said: “Your post of a 23% delta as reported . . . is probably a compilation of women's incomes compared to mens without regard for the KSA required or type work.”

I believe you’re wrong about this, Harp3339. The meaning behind “equal pay for equal work” is clear, and the organization is saying that:

“Women, on average, earn less than men in virtually every single occupation for which there is sufficient earnings data for both men and women to calculate an earnings ratio.”

Harp3339 said: “It is a legal requirement that they be paid equally when these conditions exist. Any female that thinks she is being discriminated against should file a complaint with the EEOC.”

You obviously were never employed in a large corporation, Harp3339. Things are a bit more complicated than you think. Anyway, the Paycheck Fairness Act would help to secure equal pay for equal work for all Americans:

The bill would update the Equal Pay Act of 1963, a law that has not been able to achieve its promise of closing the wage gap because of limited enforcement tools and inadequate remedies. The Paycheck Fairness Act would make critical changes to the law, including:

- requiring employers to demonstrate that wage differentials are based on factors other than sex;

- prohibiting retaliation against workers who inquire about their employers’ wage practices or disclose their own wages;

- permitting reasonable comparisons between employees within clearly defined geographical areas to determine fair wages;

- strengthening penalties for equal pay violations;

- directing the Department of Labor to assist employers and collect wage-related data;

- authorizing additional training for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission staff to better identify and handle wage disputes.

http://www.aclu.org/womens-rights/equal-pay-equal-work-pass-paycheck-fairness-act

October 20, 2012 at 7:35 p.m.
mymy said...

Oh, the nutty liberals. They at least give us plenty of laughs!!!!

This week, MSNBC “star” Chris Matthews made the following statement , clearly speaking out of frustration as he watched President Obama wilt under the scrutiny of the second presidential debates where he was challenged repeatedly by Republican Mitt Romney.

“I don’t think he understands the Constitution of the United States…He’s the president of the United States. You don’t say, ‘you’ll get your chance.’”

Chris Matthews was angry with Romney challenging the president on his record during the course of an election to unseat him . Imagine that.

Matthews should be angry about the president’s poor performance not with Romney’s tenaciousness in seeking the truth.

But here's the truth, that Matthews hasn't seemed to have learned: the respect you give is the respect you get. If the president wants respect than he better stop acting like a potentate and more like a president of the United States. Romney gave the president the respect he deserved at the debates and during the course of the election.

You would think Matthews would know what is in the Constitution and what is not.

I suggest that someone needs to stuff Chris Matthews' 2012 Christmas stocking with a copy of the US Constitution.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/19/msnbc-matthews-claims-it-unconstitutional-for-romney-to-challenge-obama/#ixzz29sznOcfA

October 20, 2012 at 7:55 p.m.
alprova said...

BRP wrote: "Do you think you "own" your land?"

BRP quoted: "U.S. citizens have entered adhesion contracts with the federal United States government under the 14th Amendment whereby their unalienable rights to own land absolutely in an allodial state, have been reduced to a qualified ownership and "color of title" under the Negotiable Instruments law. In the twentieth century, America has returned to the dark ages of feudalism, its former "state" Citizens having been reduced to tenants and renters once again, not the sovereign owners of their land."

In case anyone were to actually read the Constitution, nowhere does it state that there is a right to own property with allodial title rights.

An allodial title is based on a concept going back to the 15th century, referring to a title in which the right to any land was not dependent on a feudal lord. To make a rather complicated explanation short and sweet, in medieval Europe, land ownership was granted only after swearing an oath to fight for a lord who had ownership rights to parcels of land. Feudalism is a very out-dated term and has never been a requirement to receive title to land in the U.S..

A true allodial title could not be taken away from the owner by anyone...ever or for any reason. One having allodial title to a piece of property would grant them "absolute ownership rights." Such ownership rights by private citizens in the U.S. to any property do not exist, nor have they ever existed in, because the Constitution provides the government with a right to eminent domain.

The Constitution actually makes allodial titles impossible. Thus, in the U.S., the highest state of private land ownership is "fee simple." Google the term if you are unfamiliar with it.

Warranty deeds and trust deeds are documents that convey real property between private persons. The rights conveyed by these documents can vary and one must look at the terms of these deeds to see what property rights are being transferred to a new owner.

Land patents are simply deeds transferring property held by a Gov't to a private citizen.

It is a very mistaken belief by some people (kooks) that a land patent or the mythical allodial title frees one from taxation or other monetary obligations, in order to retain title, deed, or ownership of real estate.

October 20, 2012 at 8:13 p.m.
alprova said...

degage wrote: "Talking of binders, what about Obama's binder of muslims. seems he wanted more muslims as adminisration staffers. chicago tribune."

Nope. Not only is that story three and a half years old, your assertion that he "wanted" more Muslims administration staffers" is patently false as well.

You see, the truth of the matter is that the push to include Muslims in the running for Administrative positions was made by U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn. and J. Saleh Williams, the program coordinator for the Congressional Muslim Staffers Association, who submitted a book with 45 names to the Obama Administration for consideration.

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12006596?source=email

While Mitt Romney lied about he, himself "seeking to obtain binders of women" to consider for hire, neither man ever asked for the binders that were submitted to them.

October 20, 2012 at 8:33 p.m.
alprova said...

Harp3339 wrote: "What would you do? What is a logical approach to preventing unwanted pregnancies?"

"o Legalize prostitution, regulate and tax it."

Nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

"o Make birth control education and methods free, available and easily obtainable. Include free sterilization for males and females."

So long as such sterilizations are voluntarily requested, again no problem there either.

"o The law is pro-choice. Encourage those unable to afford a kid to have an abortion in the first trimester."

If everyone waited until they could "afford" to raise a child, there wouldn't be 315 million people running around this nation.

Again, so long as a single woman or if her male procreation partner is in the picture, voluntarily agree to abort a fetus, it most certainly should be aborted during the first trimester.

Encouraging an abortion, under any circumstance, is dead wrong.

"o Tax payer funded abortions, which means the individual cannot afford one, should include sterilization."

First of all, the idea that there are U.S. taxpayer funded abortions, is purely a myth, unless they are funded by individual states or local Governments.

You and I depart severely when it comes to forced sterilization performed on any human being. Just because someone screws up once, it should not preclude them from ever procreating at some point in their future.

"o Provide DNA testing to identify the father and have them be financially responsible for any associated expense including the womans choice of abortion. Severe penalties for non-compliance even if financially not able to fulfill the obligation."

What penalties would or could that include, if someone is truly too poor to support the cost of raising a child? Don't you see that this is the problem as it has existed for decades.

I will agree that something needs to be done to coerce people to be more self-reliant, but what could possibly be proposed that hasn't?

It isn't the kid's fault that it was procreated by two people who are financially unable to provide support, so short of sticking a pillow over it's mouth and nose to end its life, I don't see an easy solution to the problem.

Do you?

October 20, 2012 at 8:59 p.m.
miraweb said...

When you look at an employer like 'king coal' who will fire people for not attending his political rallies you may be able to see the bind many women are in. If they start an action against discrimination there is legal protection against retaliation -but the reality is they may not be looking at vp anytime soon.

To start an action they must learn of their male colleagues' salary levels. Many companies have rules against discussing pay packages.

The differentials are calculated for women in positions equal to thei male colleagues. Women with the same level of qualification and responsibility get lower salary offers than men.

October 20, 2012 at 9:10 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Why don't we let the marketplace determine wages instead of the government being so heavy handed.

October 20, 2012 at 9:52 p.m.
alprova said...

TOES02800 wrote: "Democrats degrade women by assuming that women only care about birth control and abortion."

Nobody has stated that women "only" care about birth control and abortion, but there are polls out there that prove that both are definitely high on the list of many women across the land.

"That women only think with their collective uterus."

As opposed to men who think with their collective penises? There's sure enough of that going around too.

"You democrats out there are grasping at straws in a hay field, hoping that something catches on."

Too late and a moot point. It's out there and people on both sides are keeping it alive.

"Didn't you try this "war on women" thing before?"

Perhaps, but attitudes expressed by prominent Republicans have forced the issue off of the back burner.

"How about the "Bain is evil" thing?"

I'll bet you haven't done a minute's worth of research into Mitt's source of income to discover just how it is that he made his $450 million fortune, have you?

You're so eager to elect a Republican, and to swallow hook, line, and sinker, that Romney is a job creator, that the truth does not matter at all.

By all means, vote for the man. Just don't think you are doing so as an informed voter.

"Hell, you even tried the "Romney killed my sick wife" thing!"

Let's be very clear. That particular campaign ad was put together and was placed by Prioritiesusaaction.org, for sure working on behalf of electing the President to a second term, but that particular ad was not endorsed by Barack Obama, and that PAC was solely responsible for the content in it.

Was it a lie? In the time line that it was presented, yes it was.

Have PACs working to elect Mitt Romney been guilty of creating comparable false campaign ads? You bet they have. Case in point;

The President is not, nor has he ever, attempted to "force gay marriage on the country."

He simply has stated that he is not opposed to gay marriage.

October 20, 2012 at 9:53 p.m.
fairmon said...

mountainlaurel said....

You obviously were never employed in a large corporation, Harp3339. Things are a bit more complicated than you think. Anyway, the Paycheck Fairness Act would help to secure equal pay for equal work for all Americans:

You may be the one that doesn't understand how complicated things are and how most corporations fully comply or exceed with every nitpicking piece of legislation passed. You have no concept of how unnecessary and costly some of them are. I was an HR manager with the 7rh largest corporation in the world at the time. I know several large corporations where the allegations in your referenced source is not true. I also know corporations are required to annually file a report with the EEOC showing the salaries at each level and show there is no gender, race or age discrimination. The pay and progression systems are designed to prevent discrimination. I can't say what mom and pop operations or smaller employees with fewer resources nor am I familiar with all large corporations just as you aren't. I know it can happen but, I know damn well there was no gender pay delta for the same work in either hourly or salary positions by my employer and those other corporations in the U.S. and Canada I routinely interacted with.

The pay day fairness act removes an employers ability to penalize employees for not keeping their salary confidential, It makes a training statement about enforcement personnel and increases the penalty for violations. The only concern I would have is the need to keep salaries confidential which could be done and still show the data to confirm a valid nondiscrimination compensation practice.

You really don't want to get into an HR or labor law discussion with me but again I won't work hard enough to put down every piece of garbage statistics you can find from a number of self serving sources. You appear to be an incorrigible skeptic of any business with more than two locations. Are you a victim of this alleged pay discrimination by your employer? There are some very valid reasons for keeping salaries confidential which I won't take the time to list. Did you ever wonder why with 6% of the world's population we have 66% of the world's lawyers?

October 20, 2012 at 9:57 p.m.
alprova said...

Patriot1 wrote: "Why don't we let the marketplace determine wages instead of the government being so heavy handed."

Because you and I both know that there are people out there desperate enough to work for any amount of money and you also know that there are employers out there who are more than willing to take advantage of them too.

Aren't you an employer? Goodness knows why you would ask such a question.

Looking to hire some super-cheap labor?

October 20, 2012 at 9:59 p.m.
alprova said...

TOES02800 wrote: "Obama Campaign Borrows $15M from Bank of America Warren Buffett invested $5B in BofA last year."

That is a total lie. Barack Obama has not borrowed a dime, from anyone or any institution, at any time for the 2012 election cycle.

Please take a moment to read his campaign finance disclosure, filed just yesterday with the FEC. Scroll down to the "Detailed Summary" section and peruse lines 19 & 27;

http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2012/M10/C00431445.html

October 20, 2012 at 10:14 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

I got the form right here alpo.

You play tiddlywinks with "Obama" vs. "Obama for America".

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00431445/821325/sc1/ALL

October 20, 2012 at 10:24 p.m.
alprova said...

ibshame wrote: "(You cited) INTELLIGENCE HANDED TO HIM (GWB) A FULL MONTH BEFORE 9/11 INDICATING BIN LADEN WAS HEAVILY INVOLVED IN PLANNING AN ATTACK INSIDE THE U.S..."

That is a brilliant point.

Given all this faux outrage over what led up to the deaths of 4 Americans, which most certainly deserves to be fully investigated, where were the calls by these same people for GWB's head, for his lack of leadership and for not staying on top of the situation, or for ignoring intelligence that might have prevented 3,000 American lives being lost, within our own borders?

"(This) is ridiculous and (it) will eventually backfire on the wing nuts who will eventually either STFU or find them some other issue to try and make Mitt Romney seem less than the incompetent idiot he is when it comes to foreign policy."

I feel more than confident that Mitt's lacking in foreign policy will be handily exposed this coming Monday, during the final debate.

CBS's Bob Schieffer has announced that the questions asked of both men will center on America's role in the World; Afghanistan and Pakistan; Red Lines: Israel and Iran; the changing Middle East and the new face of terrorism; and the rise of China and tomorrow's World.

Bob Shieffer hosted the most lively of the three debates between Barack Obama and John McCain. The man may be elderly, but he is known for putting candidates on the spot, and as we know, Mitt Romney does not do very well when cornered.

Running an Olympics is not FOREIGN POLICY.

October 20, 2012 at 10:50 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al said "Let's be very clear. That particular campaign ad was put together and was placed by Prioritiesusaaction.org, for sure working on behalf of electing the President to a second term, but that particular ad was not endorsed by Barack Obama, and that PAC was solely responsible for the content in it."

Not true Al,your team Obama was had knowledge of this lie. "Stephanie Cutter hosted an Obama campaign conference call in May in which Soptic told reporters the very story featured in the Priorities spot. Both the campaign and the Priorities USA Action said there was no coordination about Soptic’s appearances. In the campaign’s ad, Soptic speaks only about the plant. In the Priorities spot, he tells the personal story he relayed during the Obama campaign conference call. On the May 14 Obama campaign call, Soptic detailed his wife's illness and death."

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/08/08/busted_team_obama_caught_lying_about_cancer_ad

October 20, 2012 at 10:55 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Have another swig you faggot alcoholic.

October 20, 2012 at 11:04 p.m.
alprova said...

TOES02800 wrote: "I got the form right here alpo."

That form does not reflect a loan being obtained and reported in the campaign financial disclosure that I cited.

I humbly apologize for the use of the word "lie" in my response, but you do see why I thought the loan claim was false, don't you?

I will further stipulate that it does appear that the Obama political campaign committee has obtained a loan in the amount of $15 million, but why does it not show up on the disclosure? The loan date was 9/04/2012 and the latest campaign disclosure was filed yesterday on the 19th, which covers the finances for the month of September

"You play tiddlywinks with "Obama" vs. "Obama for America"."

Go back and look at my cite. It also is listed as "Obama For America."

No loans appear in that disclosure, both for the month and the entire election cycle.

So which document is correct?

Ah...NOW I see why it does not appear on the financial disclosure.

Only loans received from or guaranteed by the candidate are disclosed, so President Obama did not personally borrow that money.

You did write that it was the campaign that borrowed the money, so I have no choice but to retract and apologize completely.

I do so retract my challenge and offer my apology to you Sir.

October 20, 2012 at 11:40 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al, since we will never know what those classified documents contained that Clinton's former National Security Adivsor Sandy Berger destroyed right before he was to give testimony to the 911 Commission, it is possible those documents contained intelligence information that was never given to Bush. Those documents may have prevented the deaths of 3,000 Americans.

October 20, 2012 at 11:44 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

rick1k , yeah but that was a trivial little thing. Berger went to jail, right? What, he didn't?

October 20, 2012 at 11:53 p.m.
alprova said...

rick1 wrote: "Not true Al,your team Obama was had knowledge of this lie."

Read what I wrote. That ad was not endorsed by the President and Priorities USA Action assembled that ad all by it's lonesome.

Those two facts still stand.

Let's dissect what was related in that phone call;

"After we lost our jobs we found out that we were going to lose our health insurance and that our pensions hadn't been funded like Bain promised they would be. I was lucky enough to find another job as a custodian in a local school district. That gave me some health insurance but I couldn't afford to buy it for my wife."

Okay...so far, so good. No discrepancies.

"A little while later she was diagnosed with lung cancer. I had to put her in a county hospital because she didn't have health care. And when the cancer took her away, all I got was an enormous bill."

Now what in the above gives anyone that idea or what was spoken that stands as proof that Stephanie Cutter knew;

1.) That the time line involved as to when Mrs. Soptic died after Mr. Soptic was laid-off from GST Steel?

2.) That his wife had health care insurance at the time she was diagnosed with lung cancer?

It is quite conceivable that Mr. Soptic spoke with both Stephanie Cutter and with representatives of Priorities USA Action, and that he omitted the pertinent facts and/or lied to both.

Obama's campaign did not, after all, insert that particular lie in his own campaign ad, whereas Priorities USA Action did include both.

Listening to that audio recording, I think it is obvious as hell that Mr. Soptic was reading what he spoke. It was not genuine.

That leads me to wonder...why would someone prepare what they were going to say and read it during a phone call?

Stephanie Cutter offered the following in August in response to a direct question about the issue, and I find nothing at all wrong in her response.

She did not deny having spoke to Mr. Soptic. She denied knowing what the details were to his wife's death.

October 21, 2012 at 12:38 a.m.
alprova said...

rick1 wrote: "Al, since we will never know what those classified documents contained that Clinton's former National Security Adivsor Sandy Berger destroyed right before he was to give testimony to the 911 Commission, it is possible those documents contained intelligence information that was never given to Bush. Those documents may have prevented the deaths of 3,000 Americans."

Oh c'mon. Sandy Berger only copied, but did not destroy documents that were filed in the National Archives, four years following 9/11/01. He was prosecuted for unauthorized removal of classified material.

The documents were five classified copies of a single report commissioned from Richard Clarke, covering internal assessments of the Clinton administration's handling of the unsuccessful 2000 millennium attack plots.

After a long investigation, Justice Department prosecutors determined that Berger only removed classified copies of data stored on hard drives stored in the National Archives, and that no original material was destroyed.

The National Archives....you know...that place where documents wind up when the Gov't is finished with them?

Do you seriously think that intelligence reports that the President did not see, would ever wind up in the National Archives?

It is common knowledge that GWB was so advised of Osama bin Laden's threat at least 30 days before 9/11.

All that aside, I'm in no manner blaming GWB for 9/11 in any sense whatsoever. He was not told any details as to when, where, or how those attacks would occur.

What I am offering, is that President Obama was also not made aware of any of the intelligence that has since been forthcoming surrounding the attack in Benghazi.

For some strange reason, there are some people, mainly Republicans and their cheerleaders, who think that our system of intelligence is perfect when it comes to this latest incident, and that it must be a conspiracy, but found the breakdown in intelligence 11 years ago to be totally excusable.

October 21, 2012 at 1:21 a.m.
rick1 said...

Sorry Al but your post is not acursate about Berger and the documents.

Berer illegally took confidential documents from the Archives on more than one occasion. He folded documents in his clothes, snuck them out of the Archives building, and stashed them under a construction trailer nearby until he could return, retrieve them, and later cut them up. After he was caught, he lied to the investigators and tried to shift blame to Archive employees.

Contrary to his initial denials and later excuses, Berger clearly intended from the outset to remove sensitive material from the Archives. He used the pretext of making and receiving private phone calls to get time alone with confidential material, although rules governing access dictated that someone from the Archives staff must be present. He took bathroom breaks every half-hour to provide further opportunity to remove and conceal documents.

Before this information was released, the Justice Department, accepting his explanation of innocent and accidental removal of the documents, allowed Berger to enter a plea to the misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material - no prison time, no loss of his bar license. The series of actions that the Archives and House investigations detail, however, are entirely at odds with protestations of innocence. Nothing about his actions was accidental. Nothing was casual. And nothing was normal.

What could have been important enough for Berger to take the risks he did? What could have been important enough for a lawyer of his distinction to risk disgrace, disbarment, and prison?

To paraphrase the questions asked of Richard Nixon by members of his own Party, what did he take and why did he take it?

Read more http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/sandy_berger_what_did_he_take.html

October 21, 2012 at 8:26 a.m.
rick1 said...

The voice at the end of the call was Stephanie Cutter thanking Joe for "sharing his experiences" on a conference call she was running. Yes, the very same Stephanie Cutter who claimed on national television earlier today that she does not "know the facts about when Mr. Soptic’s wife got sick or the facts about his health insurance."

Read the story in the link I provided.

October 21, 2012 at 8:31 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Harp3339 says: "You may be the one that doesn't understand how complicated things are . . . You have no concept of how unnecessary and costly some of them are. . .I was an HR manager with the 7rh largest corporation in the world. . . You really don't want to get into an HR or labor law discussion with me . . . . You appear to be an incorrigible skeptic of any business with more than two locations. . . Are you a victim of this alleged pay discrimination employer?”

Good grief, Harp3339. . . I bet you were proned to temper tantrums as a child. . . Hopefully, you outgrew it. . . As to your question, the answer is no, but I know women who have experienced pay discrimination by their employers. . . In some cases, they resolved the issue informally while in other cases they simply sought and found better employment elsewhere.

“Harp 3339 said: “most corporations fully comply or exceed with every nitpicking piece of legislation passed. . .I know several large corporations where the allegations in your referenced source is not true . . I also know corporations are required to annually file a report with the EEOC. . . nor am I familiar with all large corporations just as you aren't. . . I know it can happen but, I know damn well there was no gender pay delta . . .by my employer and those other corporations in the U.S. and Canada I routinely interacted with.”

It’s times like these that I think you like to argue for the sake of arguing, Harp3339. You eventually admit that you’re not familiar with the employment practices of all large corporations and that you know that pay discrimination does occur, but then you go on to argue against the need for the legislation. Why? As to the “nitpicking,” it seems to me that “nitpicking” is just part of life – pesky laws and such just comes with the territory of living.

Harp3339 said: “The pay day fairness act removes an employers ability to penalize employees for not keeping their salary confidential. . .The only concern I would have is the need to keep salaries confidential. . .”

I fully understand that “salaries” can be a very touchy morale issue, Harp3339, but as an alleged HR expert surely you must know that the “confidentially requirement & penalty” is the primary method used by a company or corporation to hide its pay discrimination policies.

October 21, 2012 at 12:09 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.