Tune in at 6pm tonight for a raucous discussion of the weeks events on the election front. Click here! We are taking calls tonight! Dial these digits and sound off: 877-653-8381
Recent Comments
Propertius on Today’s Poll -Who Is The… conner43 on Sub Humans leslie on Call Em Like I See Em JohnSmart on Today’s Poll -Who Is The… myiq2xu on Today’s Poll -Who Is The… Thank You!
Buy This Movie!
On the radio!
Listen now:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/johnwsmart/2012/10/19/the-john-smart-show
Did you discuss the Al Smith dinner tonight? I will say it again, Obama does. not. want. to. win. He doesn’t want to do this job any longer. Romney was having fun, relaxed. Obama acted like he just had to be there because it was an obligation.
Wow, run, that was quite something to see Obama so seemingly deflated, enervated, listless. It’s almost as if his internal polls are telling him he’s going to lose.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/18/video-romney-roasts-obama-at-the-al-smith-dinner/
Is it safe to re-surface? Are the Candy-Crowley wars over? Pass the peace pipe.
Not sure what’s in the pipe, but clearly one’s being passed around.
Hahahhahaha
I think that people who are upset by whether or not Obama called the Benghazi attack an ‘act of terror’ think that to agree that he characterized it as such (that he did call it an act of terror) means that there was no cover up. This must be why people are so hot and bothered by it. I think that in reality both ideas are true. He did, in fact, call the attack an act of terror by saying so in an address the next day in the Rose Garden that was about Benghazi and, from what I’ve read, no other issue:
“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. ”
He characterized the attack as an ‘act of terror’.
He also planted the seeds for the tape / spontaneous riot explanation at the beginning of the same speech, which I do suspect to be a cover up:
“Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.”
He did both. What he did not do was call the attack a pre-planned or methodical act of terror, leaving room for the cover up that followed. I think Romney meant to make this distinction, but got tangled in his thinking in the heat of the moment.
Yep, that sounds just about right. I endorse this statement.
I still stand by my earlier assertion that the WH searched YouTube to find SOMETHING to blame the attacks on. No reporter in the ME asked the attackers why they were doing what they did. They were handed the explanation by the WH and they ran with it. We must also remember that the MSM didn’t even cover the story about the attack for days and it was that freaking Drudge that made them start reporting it.
No, Jay, you’re wrong. We just have a different definition of lying than people like you do. From West Point’s code of honor (bold by me):
Definitions of the tenets of the Honor Code
LYING: Cadets violate the Honor Code by lying if they deliberately deceive another by stating an untruth or by any direct form of communication to include the telling of a partial truth and the vague or ambiguous use of information or language with the intent to deceive or mislead.
FTR, Romney did use the words “terrorist act by a terrorist group” while Obama and Crowley shut him down. They did this because they were making a pathetic attempt to circumvent the truth (aka lying) via wordplay.
From the transcripts:
ROMNEY: It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group. And to suggest — am I incorrect in that regard, on Sunday, the — your secretary –
OBAMA: Candy?
ROMNEY: Excuse me. The ambassador of the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and spoke about how –
(I particularly love Obama’s “Candy?” plea. Help me Candy, Mitt Romney’s telling the truth!)
It’s why people were so upset with Bill Clinton when he said he hadn’t had “sex” with Monica Lewinsky and then tried to excuse his lie away by claiming a distinction between sexual intercourse and oral sex.
People like me know we were lied to about the Benghazi attack; and during the debate Obama and Crowley lied to us about being lied to (see definition of lying above). That’s why we’re pissed off. The WH and the MSM are just piling lie upon lie.
And, Jay, if Crowley is such a good reporter, why didn’t she or CNN report that our embassy had been attacked by terrorists immediately after Obama’s Rose Garden speech if—as she and Obama are trying to insinuate—he called the Benghazi assault a terrorist attack during that speech? Why was CNN and just about every American news outlet saying that “protesters” (not terrorists) attacked the embassy?
People like me know we were lied to about the Benghazi attack; and during the debate Obama and Crowley lied to us about being lied to (see definition of lying above). That’s why we’re pissed off. The WH and the MSM are just piling lie upon lie.
I agree with gxm.
“shadowy figure”, “condemn this hateful video” was being pounded into the public by Obama but now he”s going with “what I really said was”?
It’s a feeble attempt at gaslighting, imo.
Deadenders: I think either something like you suggested happened, or there was already a drumbeat against the video on the ground in the region and they chose to use it this way. It was clearly a choice.
GXM: No, I’m not wrong. He did call it an act of terror. I realize why that’s a bullshit verbal loophole, but it is on its face a true statement. I was raised by lawyers and know all to well that you can speak the truth while being dishonest. Everybody does it.
If Crowley was on the ground in Benghazi or didn’t work for one of the major networks who tell them what they can report, I’d hold her accountable, but that still wouldn’t make her a ‘bad reporter’ in my view. So you don’t like Candy Crowley and really do. Doesn’t seem like an important disagreement to me, so have a great day!
Ugh. Too early. I meant “I really do”.
Correct, Jay — the issue is not whether obama called the attack “terror” or not. The problem is the administration immediately spun a story about a non-existent “spontaneous protest” to a youtube video. Sounds like Petreaus is a corner for telling the story to Congress
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_21808401/cia-found-militant-links-day-after-libya-attack
CIA says it had confirmation within 24 hours that the attack was linked to an al-quaeda group. State had watched a near real-time surveillance video of the attack, and knew there’d been no spontaneous protest. There’d also been warnings that 9/11 anniversary attacks were in the works. The WH chose to ignore that intel and loudly trumpet the youtube explanation.
I believe DE’s hunch that somebody went looking for a good cover story and found the video. We know the WH’s motive — just days after bragging about killing ObL and crushing al-quaeda at the convention, al-quaeda murders our ambassador.
Follow the trail of the youtube sotry to its origin. If Romney is sharp enough monday night to pin obama on where the story came from, obama is in big trouble. If it can be traced back to the WH, then obama faces impeachment.
Jay, I was responding to your first sentence. You are wrong about why people like me are angry. You are completely missing our point.
We’re not talking about law or lawyers, we’re talking about ethics. They are not the same thing. In the ethical and honorable sense, Obama and the MSM (including Crowley’s shameless stunt the other night) have lied and continue to lie to us about the attack.
Let me repeat the definition of lying, bold by me:
“LYING: Cadets violate the Honor Code by lying if they deliberately deceive another by stating an untruth or by any direct form of communication to include the telling of a partial truth and the vague or ambiguous use of information or language with the intent to deceive or mislead.”
This, the words in bold above, is what Obama, his administration, and the MSM puppets (including Crowley) have done from the start and continue to do to this day. “Vague or ambiguous language” may very well be acceptable in a court of law. But it is not acceptable for a president’s statement about a terrorist attack. And it is not acceptable for a so-called “journalist” to accept, and promote, at face value.
Everybody does it.
I suppose. But not everyone is the President of the United States lying about a terrorist attack on our Libyan embassy and the assassination of our ambassador. This is not an inconsequential, everyday lie. In terms of degree, duty, and honor, the Benghazi lies that Obama and his administration have told, and that the MSM has shamelessly promoted, reach a level of deceit and disgrace that is deplorable. That’s why we’re pissed off. Not because we think this negates the Benghazi cover-up because it doesn’t. Quite the opposite, it proves that Obama has been lying from the start and deliberately used vague language that could be contorted, if need be, at a later date. Which then pisses us off even more when people try the “technically, he was telling the truth” argument; because, no, he’s been lying and evading the truth for over a month now. Pointing to three little words and calling them a “fact” does not change that essential truth or the enormity of the WH’s Benghazi lie.
I believe DE’s hunch that somebody went looking for a good cover story and found the video. We know the WH’s motive — just days after bragging about killing ObL and crushing al-quaeda at the convention, al-quaeda murders our ambassador.
The “why” has always bothered me, because implementing a cover story has never made sense to me. You make a good point. I think. I’m still slightly baffled though. They had to know the truth would come out. Could Obama really be so self-absorbed that he thought he could keep it hidden until after the election?
Gxm – I agree with you that what Obama said during the debate was unethical. It was not the whole story. He was actively covering up even in that debate. I do not believe Candy was being unethical, given parole as moderator. She was commenting on what was said, and what she said was said was said. That was kind of fun to say. (Please pardon the typos, I am dictating to my phone.)
Anon a ove was me, Jay.
“Could Obama really be so self-absorbed that he thought he could keep it hidden until after the election?”
President Ripley has gotten away with outrageous lies his entire life. The hubris might bring him down this time, but then again, they only need to dodge for another three weeks.
obama has been thrown onto the horns of a ‘were you lying, or just incompetent?’ dilemma. Romney needs to get it straight on Monday. Also, despite obama’s semantic victory, the post-debate talk has been all about the bogus cover story.
Jay – the Rose Garden address on 9/12/12 was about the anniversary of 9/11. That’s how the remarks started out. Any written remarks are VERY carefully drafted and vetted and approved. They, I know, had to do quick revisions because of the killings in Benghazi, but because I know how carefully those remarks are written and pored over – it is CLEAR that they absolutely meant to decouple the words terror from the “attack in Benghazi.” Rather, the “no acts of terror will . . ” were supposed to be read in connection to 9/11/01, not Benghazi. That was VERY deliberate. What I’m mad about is the fact that 1) The administration refused to directly link the Benghazi assassinations to terrorists from the get go because they thought it wouldn’t look good during a campaign where they were trying to tout Obama’s foreign policy/winning the terror war credentials, so they tried that slight of hand with teh Rose Garden remarks because they realized he had to reference Benghazi somehow, just not as terrorism; 2) they then spent weeks lying, covering and weaselling and falsely accusing some poor random patsy for the terrorism because of see #1; 3) THEN, Obama had the gall – knowing exactly what they had done for weeks, but since they were clearly caught by the time of the debate – to act like he’d been claiming it was terrorism all along – in fact from the day after Rose Garden remarks when he also knew full well that they had most deliberately decoupled the language of terror from the description of Benghazi.
If this were Bush or any Republican president, every single person on this thread would see this blatant (and incompetent) lying for what it is. In fact, if President Romney ever tries to pull this shit, he should rightly be called on it. It’s disturbing that people – who claim to be able to see all of Obama’s flaws – are trying to defend him on this, particularly in light of the horrific deaths that occured. (Oh – I’m sorry – the “not optimal” deaths that occured).
I’ve been clear as a bell, I think. No need for everybody to continue saying how what happens exactly confirms their suspicions about the media and our politicians: we know.
gxm17 I agree complety with your comment. I know what lying looks and sounds like. And big ones were being spun.
Sorry for the long quotes in this comment but it’s necessary to make my point.
This, from gxm’s first comment in this thread:
From your definition of lying, above: “and the vague or ambiguous use of information or language with the intent to deceive or mislead”
This is interesting, gxm, because what you then go on to characterize and post of the Romney/Obama exactly fits with that definition of lying.
The portion of the exchange that we’ve been discussing whether or not was lying was not what you copy and pasted, it was what happened right before it, this:
I’ve never known you to be dishonest before and that makes me wonder what’s going on.
It’s an especially devious thing to deceptively change the crux of an argument at the same time you claim ethical outrage.
That’s not to say Obama isn’t a liar and a cheat, and as I’ve claimed many times a sociopath, but what you’ve chosen to write and post speaks to your character, not his.
That’s poorly worded; sorry.
What I meant to say is that gxm’s choosing to post that portion of the transcript was deceitful — because it wasn’t the portion we’d been discussing all along.
“It’s an especially devious thing to deceptively change the crux of an argument at the same time you claim ethical outrage.”
Zal, this happens with regularity here and, I believe, all over the internet. I’m noticing that it also happens often in face to face discussions these days, but I find that a bit easier to deal with because you can say right away, “Wait a minute, that’s not what we were talking about at all”. I don’t know if I’ve just woken up to it or if it is a modern trend, but it diminishes the value of conversation and, increasingly, makes me not want to even try to express a point of view that will be unpopular. Maybe that’s the goal?
Wow. A lot of talk about the transcript of the debate. Which, of course, obfuscates the point being made that you both are defending Obama’s abject lying about what he said in the Rose Garden on 9/12/12 and thereafter
Zal, unlike you, I try to use as few words as possible. I figured everyone was aware of the transcripts at this point and I identified the portion as before Obama and Crowley shut him (Romney) down, which I assumed anyone familiar would know was when the exchange ended. You are so biased and so uninterested in what others are actually saying that you form an opinion without even reading their words. My point was that Obama and Crowley ended the exchange at this point because Romney had started to use the correct wording, i.e., Romney’s telling the truth, Candy, please shut him up. And Candy did.
IOW, FTR Romney did figure out Obama’s word juke and restated his position using the correct wording and as soon as he did, he was silenced. (See, I probably should have used less words to begin with.)
Jay, I enjoyed our exchange, and I apologize if you thought I was trying to pull something over on you. I wasn’t.
You’re going to continue to misrepresent it? Wow. Obama and Crowley did not shut him down.
You posted that as if Romney was “shut down” in the middle of a sentence but he was not. He finished his sentence and then Obama begins to talk and Crowley shuts him down to move on to the next topic.
I don’t know why you think anybody’s going to buy the deceit you posted, or maybe you don’t know, maybe you picked it up from another poster’s comment on another blog, I don’t know, being deceitful doesn’t sound like you – but the truth of the exchange is on the video I posted in this thread. Obama and Crowley didn’t cut off Romney, he was given a chance to make his point and he simply made it badly.
Jay, I forget to mention (as I’ve been absorbed in the biography of Peter Doyle, who I just discovered is my great, great uncle) that after your comments, I re-examined Crowley’s mannerisms, and what I took for deceit (darting eyes) could very well have been confusion. I think both Romney and Crowley were startled by Obama’s whopper. But I still think she shouldn’t have injected the, IMO bogus, fact-checking. It was unprofessional.
Zal, whatever. First I’m lying because I’m addressing a part of the exchange *no one else was discussing* and now it’s freakin’ relevant to *your* point. You really can be an ass. IMO, Obama clearly signaled to Candy that he wanted the exchange to be cut off now that the wordplay was being addressed, not matter what words were coming out of his lying mouth (i.e., “I’m happy to have a longer conversation”). And, for whatever reason, Candy complied. I also agree that Romney complied, because I think he sussed the situation out and like any good poker player he walked away (and filed the information away for future use).
One thing we can all agree on: That exchange is amazing human theater. The real deal. It’s pretty spectacular and not something you often see, especially in a presidential debate which is usually all contrived drama, not the naked thing.
Link to C-effing-NN (not DU), the source I copied and pasted the transcript exchange from. It was not a blog or a comment. It was C-effing-NN defending their gal Crowley’s remarks.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/18/politics/fact-check-crowley-critics-debate/index.html
You keep trying to distract from the original point, which you refuse to concede even though you’ve been proved wrong.
But let’s keep going with that. It’s making more sense, your thought process, the more you add to it. If you’re believing “C-effing-NN” rather than going to the source material yourself, the video, then that explains why your thought process is telling you to accept, defend, support the corrupt Dem/GOP/Corporate/Wall Street stranglehold on our economy and our lives. CNN, MSNBC, FOX, they’re part of the same problem. You think commenting, now, that your source for the misinformation was CNN, that that makes it their responsibility. It doesn’t. What you post is your responsibility. You posted it as support for you point, take responsibility for it.
And the same goes for our government and how both Obama and Romney will lie to us and cheat us. You’re so up in arms about Obama’s cover up, well Romney will do exactly the same thing if he’s given a chance, just as Bush did before Obama. So if you’re really outraged about it, take action that backs that up.
C-effing-NN, as in: in the tank for Obama. IOW, they are pro-Crowley (she works for them) and pro-Obama. Their transcripts will be the most favorable for Obama and Crowley, the two people (but mostly Obama) you are so eager to defend no matter how off track or inane your comments become.
And, FTR, you are the one who derailed a perfectly nice discussion by once again showing your ass all over the place.
Zal, I just want to say thank you. Thank you for turning a painful experience (voting in a swing state for Romney) a pleasant one. I have decided that I will think of you as I cast my vote. If your ears start ringing on election day, that’s me placing a vote for Romney in the hopes of throwing Obamanation out on its well-exposed ass.
And this is what you choose as your source.
Assume responsibility for your own actions.
But you know, it’s right in line with Dem/GOP apologists and supporters to blame others for their own actions. Like Obama. Next up if you have your way: Romney.
Obama seems congenitally incapable of Ever placing blame on Muslims for Anything.
It’s always ‘extremists’, ‘folks who would do us harm’..blah blah. He reminds us of the parents who constantly make excuses for their out of control kid.
For most of us, 9/11 being ‘harmful’ or Ambassador Stevens being murdered, crossed the threshold of ‘harm’ a long way back. Most of us would never ‘denigrate the religious beliefs of others’ in our daily lives, or with our neighbors, the mere thought is repugnant, Americans for the most part, are a tolerant people. We do not need a lecture on this especially from a Pres. who doesn’t even like us.
But we know obfuscation and temporizing when we see it. The acme of this was reached when the Ft. Hood massacre was called ‘workplace violence.’ How is this different from the Queen in “Alice..” ordering the painting of the white roses red.?? The same fantasy occurred in the WH Rose Garden.
A lie is a lie, no matter how much red paint is applied, and those lies have become exhausting Obama does get credit for something I would not have thought possible, he has turned millions of traditionally hopeful Americans into cynics, that may be his most lasting accomplishment
“Obama seems congenitally incapable of Ever placing blame on Muslims for Anything.”
I dunno Conner. I don’t think it’s smart for a political leader to place blame on a religion. It’s a little Hitlery. And there are non violent muslims, right?
What exactly are you asking for, Sophie? That all moslems as a group be condemned for terrorism? Or do you want to blame Islam the faith for terrorism? Christians and Jews in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Ok, how about placing blame on radical Islamists, then? He won’t do that either. I’m sorry – but it’s not Christians and Jews committing acts of terror around the world. It’s just not. Back when Christians were running amok with the Inquisition and starting the Crusades, it would have been right to condemn their use of Christianity to cause horror, terror and mayhem. It would have been ludicrous to say – oh, well, we can’t say that because that would indict Muslims and Jews too. Or, let’s practice religious tolerance. When people are causing large scale acts of mayhem in the name of religion, we need to honestly talk about that within the context of the reality in which it is occuring.
I remember when Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a right-wing orthodox Jew because he was mad about peace process with Arabs due to his extreme religious beliefs. There was HUGE soul searching throughout Israel and, indeed, the Jewish faith about how this kind of violence could occur in the name of any part of their religion. And, you know what – the burgeoning violent extremism among Orthodox Jews wasn’t stamped out entirely, clearly, but was very much turned around. THAT is what so-called moderate muslims need to be doing. Where are they? They have a best practice to draw upon.
And, Jay – blaming extremists Muslims for terrorism and openly discussing their stated religious reasons for their murders and torture is HARDLY the same as Hitler committing genocide against completely innocent, perfectly innocuous Jews and others merely because of their religion.
“And, Jay – blaming extremists Muslims… ”
Read the thread before ranting please.
The comment I was responding to reads:
“Obama seems congenitally incapable of Ever placing blame on Muslims for Anything.”
If Conner had said ‘extremist Muslims’ or any version thereof, I’d have had no comment.
And the Hitler comment, in context of what was written as opposed to what you decided was said, is completely apt.
Or, for a more recent example, how about the war of extermination (complete with concentration camps) waged against Muslim Bosnians by Catholic Croats and Orthodox Serbs less than 20 years ago? Nobody in their right minds would seek to condemn Christians en masse for these acts of deranged fanaticism. It isn’t any more reasonable to hold the average Muslim accountable for the violence committed by lunatics in the name of Islam.
Jay – thought you were ignoring me? Remember:
Jay Floyd says:
October 12, 2012 at 12:38 pm
Imma gonna go back to ignoring you Run, because you genuinely don’t see anything in your peripheral vision – only what you want to see.
I gave conner the benefit of the doubt that he was not referring to every single Muslim alive, but the significant #s of Muslims who engage in terrorism or also condone it and/or financially or morally support it. And – that is a huge # of people who are Muslim. To ignore that is naive at best. And, if you are going to throw the Hitler insult around, it should be about something that is obviously in the realm of fascism, not what Conner said. So – no – calling someone “fascisty” or “Hitlery” in this instance is far from apt.
I do not think the Bosnian war is the right analogy. People didn’t condemn Christians en masse for that slaughter for a very good reason – because Christians around the world condemned it and Christian countries – maybe not soon enough, but they did – declared war on the other Christians who were engaged in genocide and STOPPED them. Which Muslim countries have banded together to stop the spread of al qaeda and the henious Taliban religious fundamentalist ideology and spoken out in mosques and on political lecterns and across the Muslim world about this evil? Huh? Which ones? Everyone keeps saying over and over again – this is not all Muslims – like if we keep saying it enough, Muslims will somehow recognize that they need to act to exorcise this scourge. In fact, the exact opposite is happening. Muslims – yes – the majority of whom are not engaging in these acts – are being given a pass even though they are not forcefully speaking out because people are afraid of being called racist, or xenophobic or “hitler.” Bullshit. When I see the entire (or majority of the) Midde East reroute the billions they seem able to raise to finance the Taliban and al qaeda move – like Christian countries did against Bosnian serbs – then I’ll praise them from the rooftops. Until then, I call BS.
I thought I replied, but it didn’t post, so if two appear later, my apologies..
I am sick and tired of the Liar In Chief lecturing us and chastising us about religious tolerance, and initially trying to blame everything on a video..Americans are arguably, the most tolerant people on Earth.,but with his constant hectoring, Obama sounds as if he is on Their side.
Aside from some vandalism, no mosques full of worshipers have been burned in America, as far as I know. He seems to imply that, without his warnings,many Americans would do such a terrible thing.
This is not a tiny group of misunderstood children who just like killing people and setting bombs, as he seems to imply.
These are armies of men and some women, dedicated to killing Infidels, which includes us, especially those among us who are Christians and Jews.
I think a blanket criticism of any religion is reprehensible, and am sorry if that is how it was interpreted. I simply find O’s tone infuriating when he discusses the terrorists among us.
“Americans are arguably, the most tolerant people on Earth.” That doesn’t fly well when saying it to an atheist.
There are c. 700 million moslems in the world. What % do you guess are members of “armies dedicated to killing Infidels”?
The koran has lots of passages about loving your enemy, and lots about beheading your enemy. The bible is chock-full of of love/genocide contradictions, too. Both books have preposterous fantasies in them. The vast majority of moslems & christians have no real clue what’s actually contained in their holy books.
Now, if you want to compare compassionate Western Enlightenment with cruel medieval shamanism, then we should not be afraid to declare our culture vastly superior to theirs.
Perhaps the remaining 698
million of them should put a stop to the terrorism and brutalization of women in their own countries, since the numbers of peaceful Muslims are so great.. I won’t be holding my breath on that, sadly.
What you said, Conner. Yeah – the bible has lots of awful passages, but Christians stopped commiting honor killings, beheading women for adultery and allowing, by law, rape and child molestation generations ago. I don’t think they ever engaged in female genital mutilation, though, which is still going on across the (mostly) sub-saharan African world – now in the name of Islam. Come on.
I don’t care if this is cultural insanity or religious insanity. The fact is, that even outside of terrorism, incredibly horrific things are happening in the Muslim world – mostly to women, but not exclusively – on an INSTITUTIONAL level in the name of Islam. I know it’s uncomfortable to face, but try to argue with me that that is a fact. I’d like to see Mr. Feminist in Chief use the UN GA bully pulpit to condemn that behavior as well as Islamic terrorists rather than a youtube video or give some speech where he acts as if the only challenge facing Muslim women is their inability to wear head scarves in France. Good god.
Join. Islam is a huge problem — THE problem — of our times. I don’t care if Christianity had the Crusades or turned a blind eye to burning women as witches centuries ago — I wasnt alive then. I am alive now. And, anyone here who doesn’t think Islam is a threat to everything he/she holds dear, even given our differences, is deluded.
Run, I posted this link yesterday, it is heartbreaking to me:
http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/04/pictures-of-afghanistan-in-the-fifties-a
I’m seeing a torrent of postings today on Facebook about how the evil Republicans are engaging the ‘war on women’ because they don’t support the Lily Ledbetter Act.
I read about the legislation and found that it is about how long you can sue (retroactively) for pay discrimination based on not only gender, but any form of discrimination.
It’s not a ‘women’s issue’ — it’s a discrimination issue.
I have a feeling most people think the legislation ‘guarantees equal pay for women’ or some such thing.
I’d be interested to hear other thoughts about this, especially from people who know more about the legislation than I do.
I have the same understanding. It was the second part of the bill that guaranteed equal pay for equal work, but they never bothered to put that one up for a vote. I think they knew they had people fooled that the first part (time delay) was also equal pay.
Yes, lorac, the meat of the bill, The Equal Pay Act, was not passed. It’s maddening that so many “Republicans hate women” progs don’t know (or seem to care about) this.
IIRC, “equal pay” was part of the original legislation. The WH had Reid remove it, I presume because Obama wanted an “historic” photo op and didn’t want to go through the messy process of trying to have a meaningful law passed.
Anyone see the ABC story (Jake Tapper) about the release of State Dept. materials (possibly from whistleblowers) about the grossly inadequate security arrangements in Behghazi, and the unanswered requests for more from people on the ground, including some of the slain. I highly encourage you to find and read them — they’re heartbreaking (and enraging).
My sense after reading that that story and excerpts of those materials: the Obama presidency is finished. He can’t survive this. The scandal is not the cover up of the terrorist attack; it’s the virtual lack of security in the midst of a terrorist hornet’s nest.
Ugh…too many typos to correct. I beg your pardon. My excuse: the story Im referring to is very upsetting and enraging. Read it, please.
Refusals for enhanced security, yet Valjar has a full Secret Service detail 24/7.
Thank goodness those here don’t have my address, I’m sure they would send the men in white coats upon reading this, but bear with me.
What if this was supposed to be a kidnapping that went horribly wrong ? As I understand it, the three Seals were not all supposed to be there. This is how evil and desperate I think the O people to be. I mean rescuing a kidnapped ambassador would give the failing campaign a nice boost, wouldn’t it ?
ok..I’ll go take my meds now…
Connor, those men in white coats are outside your front door.
lol!