RE: Who is Sharon Bialek?

RE: Who is Sharon Bialek? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Who is Sharon Bialek? (11/10/2011 7:58:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic then maybe you should try and find a satisfactory link yourself, or... wait, and see what else comes up .. I have looked. I haven't found anything. You were claiming there were two settlements, so I figured you knew what you were talking about, and could source it. Firm Actually some loose terminology has been floating around. I dont know of ANY settlements, there were two severance agreements. Big difference.

tazzygirl -> RE: Who is Sharon Bialek? (11/10/2011 8:19:47 PM)
“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," the NRA said, according to National Journal. "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." http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/111104/herman-cain-harassment A severance agreement would not have been worded this way by the NRA.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Who is Sharon Bialek? (11/10/2011 9:15:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl “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," the NRA said, according to National Journal. "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." http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/111104/herman-cain-harassment A severance agreement would not have been worded this way by the NRA. Why not? And that's one. You got anything yet on a second one? [8D] Firm

Owner59 -> RE: Who is Sharon Bialek? (11/11/2011 7:32:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic then maybe you should try and find a satisfactory link yourself, or... wait, and see what else comes up .. I have looked. I haven't found anything. You were claiming there were two settlements, so I figured you knew what you were talking about, and could source it. Firm Well,to someone who supposedly in business,that`s pretty disingenuous,Firm. In business, confidentiality agreements are boiler-plate.As much a part of anyone`s contract as is compensation,benefits,conduct(cough)codes,non-compete clauses,etc. Are you saying that b/c you haven`t seen the settlements that both/all(and the NRA)parties have already said exist, they are false claims? One thing to consider Firm,confidentiality agreements unlike in business,don`t exist for the most part in politics. This guy Cain is trying to have his cake (the CAs) and eat it too,ie.trash talk them.

tazzygirl -> RE: Who is Sharon Bialek? (11/11/2011 8:17:23 AM)
Most severance packages are standard... for upper management. Then its typically one week for every year the person worked. they can of course add more. Using that basis, she would have had to be there... 52 years? http://www.fklaborlaw.com/faqs/employment-severance-agreements.html The NRA worded their press release very carefully. There have been cases of confidentiality contracts being ruled null by the courts based upon the legality of the information hidden. Paying someone a year salary isnt severance, its hush money. This contract was between the woman and the NRA. They paid her a years salary for her promise not to sue them or disclose the background information.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Who is Sharon Bialek? (11/11/2011 8:39:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Are you saying that b/c you haven`t seen the settlements that both/all(and the NRA)parties have already said exist, they are false claims? I've seen nothing from the NRA acknowledging a second settlement. Have you? I'm not talking about in the Politico's "anonymous sources" report, or anything similar. I just started out by asking for a link to a reliable source on the second settlement, and so far have not gotten anything. Firm

Nosathro -> RE: Who is Sharon Bialek? (11/11/2011 9:55:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl "Innocent until Proven Guilty" Something you want for Cain, yet deny to Clinton. Think about it. Bill Clinton stated on National TV that he did have sex with Monica, yes later admited he did. He was later convicted of prejury in testify to a Grand Jury, although was never impeached. Sound like Clinton was proven guilty by his own words.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Who is Sharon Bialek? (11/11/2011 10:01:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl "Innocent until Proven Guilty" Something you want for Cain, yet deny to Clinton. Think about it. , although was never impeached. Uhhhhh, yes, he was.

slvemike4u -> RE: Who is Sharon Bialek? (11/11/2011 10:02:27 AM)
He was ? Successfully,eh ?

rulemylife -> RE: Who is Sharon Bialek? (11/11/2011 10:10:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Rush likes her http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/rush-limbaugh-sharon-bialek-slurping_n_1080390.html What else is new? Limbaugh is a scumbag and always has been one.

Nosathro -> RE: Who is Sharon Bialek? (11/11/2011 10:11:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl "Innocent until Proven Guilty" Something you want for Cain, yet deny to Clinton. Think about it. , although was never impeached. Uhhhhh, yes, he was. There was a trail but not impeached, he was aquited http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18734.html

tazzygirl -> RE: Who is Sharon Bialek? (11/11/2011 10:12:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl "Innocent until Proven Guilty" Something you want for Cain, yet deny to Clinton. Think about it. Bill Clinton stated on National TV that he did have sex with Monica, yes later admited he did. He was later convicted of prejury in testify to a Grand Jury, although was never impeached. Sound like Clinton was proven guilty by his own words. He lied about a consensual act between him and Monica... as most men do. Now, lets get back to your accusations he was guilty of sexual harassment. Oh, and btw, yes, he was impeached by the House. The Senate refused to impeach him.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Who is Sharon Bialek? (11/11/2011 10:12:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl "Innocent until Proven Guilty" Something you want for Cain, yet deny to Clinton. Think about it. , although was never impeached. Uhhhhh, yes, he was. There was a trail but not impeached, he was aquited http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18734.html You dont get to redefine terms as you like. Impeached means accused, it doesnt mean convicted.

Nosathro -> RE: Who is Sharon Bialek? (11/11/2011 10:36:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl "Innocent until Proven Guilty" Something you want for Cain, yet deny to Clinton. Think about it. , although was never impeached. Uhhhhh, yes, he was. There was a trail but not impeached, he was aquited http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18734.html You dont get to redefine terms as you like. Impeached means accused, it doesnt mean convicted. Never said Clinton was convicted. Clinton was found guilty of lieing to a Grand Jury, that was a seperate matter.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Who is Sharon Bialek? (11/11/2011 10:43:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl "Innocent until Proven Guilty" Something you want for Cain, yet deny to Clinton. Think about it. , although was never impeached. Uhhhhh, yes, he was. There was a trail but not impeached, he was aquited http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18734.html You dont get to redefine terms as you like. Impeached means accused, it doesnt mean convicted. Never said Clinton was convicted. Clinton was found guilty of lieing to a Grand Jury, that was a seperate matter. I think you need your morning coffee. You said he wasnt impeached. I said he was. You said he wasnt convicted in support of your claim that he wasnt impeached. I said that impeached doesnt mean convicted. Cliff notes: He was impeached. The date was December 19, 1998. (And he was clearly guilty but the Senate acquitted on a purely partisan vote.)

Nosathro -> RE: Who is Sharon Bialek? (11/11/2011 10:47:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl "Innocent until Proven Guilty" Something you want for Cain, yet deny to Clinton. Think about it. Bill Clinton stated on National TV that he did have sex with Monica, yes later admited he did. He was later convicted of prejury in testify to a Grand Jury, although was never impeached. Sound like Clinton was proven guilty by his own words. Paula Jones accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment, there was a settlement of $850,000 to Jones He lied about a consensual act between him and Monica... as most men do. Now, lets get back to your accusations he was guilty of sexual harassment. Oh, and btw, yes, he was impeached by the House. The Senate refused to impeach him.

tazzygirl -> RE: Who is Sharon Bialek? (11/11/2011 10:52:46 AM)
Paula Jones agreed to drop her sexual harassment lawsuit against President Clinton on Nov. 13 in return for $850,000 – but no apology or admission of guilt from the president. Two weeks later, when the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the suit, it marked the conclusive end of Clinton's battle against Jones and her conservative backers. Seven months earlier, the case was dismissed by a district-court judge as having no merit, but Jones appealed. Her sexual harassment suit would have netted her far more had it went forward. The difference, as I see it, and something I did point out before is the lies. Clinton lied. I dont give a damn about a blow job... but he lied. To be honest, I dont give a damn about Cain... except that he lies... over and over, changing his lies ... and I honestly wonder about his intelligence level, not just in this, but in most things, because he is always making excuses. Now, in that, you dont see the hypocrisy in your statements? You are vilifying Clinton for a sexual harassment agreement, while supporting Cain in his.

Lucylastic -> RE: Who is Sharon Bialek? (11/11/2011 10:55:47 AM)
yep the lies are the issue and I have no sympathy for any of the women if they are lying either.

tazzygirl -> RE: Who is Sharon Bialek? (11/11/2011 10:56:37 AM)
Neither do I. Tawana was a different story.

Nosathro -> RE: Who is Sharon Bialek? (11/11/2011 11:12:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Paula Jones agreed to drop her sexual harassment lawsuit against President Clinton on Nov. 13 in return for $850,000 – but no apology or admission of guilt from the president. Two weeks later, when the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the suit, it marked the conclusive end of Clinton's battle against Jones and her conservative backers. Seven months earlier, the case was dismissed by a district-court judge as having no merit, but Jones appealed. Her sexual harassment suit would have netted her far more had it went forward. The difference, as I see it, and something I did point out before is the lies. Clinton lied. I dont give a damn about a blow job... but he lied. To be honest, I dont give a damn about Cain... except that he lies... over and over, changing his lies ... and I honestly wonder about his intelligence level, not just in this, but in most things, because he is always making excuses. Now, in that, you dont see the hypocrisy in your statements? You are vilifying Clinton for a sexual harassment agreement, while supporting Cain in his. I am not vilifing Clinton, he does that pretty good on his own. Nor am I support Cain. My point is that just because some one makes a claim about someone else it may not be true. And there are those who for their own purpose will exploit this for their own personal gain.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875