|
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message So, please show us the "precedence" of these redundant court decisions. The passage I quoted is what is used as a guideline for businesses. Are you saying that they're not valid? That's precisely what I'm saying. If you're using and abiding by them, you're leaving yourself open for litigation. You're a lawyer working on sexual harassment litigation I presume? I doubt it. Are you saying that all the 1000s of businesses are wrong? How did you come to that conclusion. Should we alert the media? The media are well aware of it. Where have you been? ?? Basically, what you're saying is that it's not ok for two consenting adults who happen to work with each other to have an affair. Not if they are at the opposite ends of the power spectrum. Today a CEO who has an consensual affair with his secretary is leaving himself open to charges if she all of a sudden decides she doesn't like the guy anymore. It especially happens if he dumps her for another tryst. I guess you should talk to Larry Ellison. In any case, anyone can sue anyone for any reason, but that doesn't mean it'll get any where. You're just grasping at staws now. And, further, you're saying that this should be investigated and prosecuted for lying about it. Is that what you're really saying??? Seems kind of like a lot of gov't intrusion into someone's private life to me. But, you're the conservative not me. I have no idea what you're asking here. Are you suggesting that we should investigate and prosecute all those people who lie about an affair in divorce court for example? I already did, but you refuse to acknowledge it. Better show that evidence to Nancy Pelosi. Maybe she'll put impeachment back on the table. ;-) So, you can't accept the possibility that a Democrat might actually have the best interests of the country in mind. Got it. In any case, you're understanding of the impeachment process is flawed: During Clinton's presidency, the world continued to transition from the political order of the Cold War, and the United States experienced the longest period of economic expansion in its history. In 1998, he became the second president to be impeached by the United States House of Representatives. He was subsequently acquitted by the United States Senate and remained in office to complete his term. Thanks for the history lesson, Jon, but now tell me something I don't already know. I said, "He was also found not guilty by the Senate." You said, "No, he wasn't." You are wrong. Why not admit it. How am *I* supposed to show you that? I'm calling for an investigation. No problem with that. If an investigation is warranted, it should happen. But I could probably retire if I had a dollar for every time you've called Bush a liar. You seem to have some evidence to which no one else is privvy. I don't like Bush, but I like left-wing dogmatic garbage even less. He knew that based on the intelligence or he should have known. For a guy with an MBA, he sure didn't check to carefully or have his minions check. Really? When some of the top intel people in the country are telling him there is a strong possibility of WMDs, and a couple of others are saying 'probably not,' does he opt for the naysayers while taking the risk that they may be wrong? Bush's only mistake, IMO, is staying in Iraq to help nation-build. He once said he would not do that, but he has done exactly that. And it's become a quagmire in which we are embroiled and losing American lives, not to mention the tens of thousands of Iraqi lives that have been lost in the process. "In your opinion" In my opinion, he's a damn liar and should be impeached. It's not going to happen, but it should. You don't believe. Well, that's an opinion and we need a full investigation. What if he DID lie? Do you really want someone who lies and 1000s die to remain in office? I don't want him to remain in office, regardless. I'm predicting he'll be out of the White House in, oh, I don't know, less than two years. And, he should be forgiven... no big deal, 1000s died, and Bush **may** have lied... *probably* lied (IN MY OPINION), but that's ok with you. You don't care. But, you sure do care about Clinton's wandering among young women. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
Capt. JG wrote:
You're a lawyer working on sexual harassment litigation I presume? I doubt it. Are you saying that all the 1000s of businesses are wrong? I'm a retired HR Manager with experience in this and you are wrong... |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"katy" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: You're a lawyer working on sexual harassment litigation I presume? I doubt it. Are you saying that all the 1000s of businesses are wrong? I'm a retired HR Manager with experience in this and you are wrong... Wrong about what? There are typically no corporate rules about dating a co-worker, boss, or subordinate. It might not be a good idea, but it's not against the law. If there are such rules, they're hard to enforce. Sometimes the result is messy and sometimes the result is a lawsuit, but that isn't the norm. Lots of people meet each other at work. I know a couple that share a job. They work in the same office. I know another couple who were boss/employee. It didn't workout, but no one sued. This really sounds like corporate or gov't intrusion into people's personal lives. I say it's none of their business unless it crosses the line into quid pro quo. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: You're a lawyer working on sexual harassment litigation I presume? I doubt it. Are you saying that all the 1000s of businesses are wrong? I'm a retired HR Manager with experience in this and you are wrong... Wrong about what? There are typically no corporate rules about dating a co-worker, boss, or subordinate. It might not be a good idea, but it's not against the law. If there are such rules, they're hard to enforce. Sometimes the result is messy and sometimes the result is a lawsuit, but that isn't the norm. Lots of people meet each other at work. I know a couple that share a job. They work in the same office. I know another couple who were boss/employee. It didn't workout, but no one sued. This really sounds like corporate or gov't intrusion into people's personal lives. I say it's none of their business unless it crosses the line into quid pro quo. WHAT???? You've been in Calidornia too long...there are plenty of corporations in the midwest that vertainly do have those kind of policies in place, especially regarding a boss/employee relationship....get yuour head out of the sand, Jon...California is not the world... |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"katy" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "katy" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: You're a lawyer working on sexual harassment litigation I presume? I doubt it. Are you saying that all the 1000s of businesses are wrong? I'm a retired HR Manager with experience in this and you are wrong... Wrong about what? There are typically no corporate rules about dating a co-worker, boss, or subordinate. It might not be a good idea, but it's not against the law. If there are such rules, they're hard to enforce. Sometimes the result is messy and sometimes the result is a lawsuit, but that isn't the norm. Lots of people meet each other at work. I know a couple that share a job. They work in the same office. I know another couple who were boss/employee. It didn't workout, but no one sued. This really sounds like corporate or gov't intrusion into people's personal lives. I say it's none of their business unless it crosses the line into quid pro quo. WHAT???? You've been in Calidornia too long...there are plenty of corporations in the midwest that vertainly do have those kind of policies in place, especially regarding a boss/employee relationship....get yuour head out of the sand, Jon...California is not the world... It's not, but it is the largest state. We do things right from time to time. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "katy" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: You're a lawyer working on sexual harassment litigation I presume? I doubt it. Are you saying that all the 1000s of businesses are wrong? I'm a retired HR Manager with experience in this and you are wrong... Wrong about what? There are typically no corporate rules about dating a co-worker, boss, or subordinate. It might not be a good idea, but it's not against the law. If there are such rules, they're hard to enforce. Sometimes the result is messy and sometimes the result is a lawsuit, but that isn't the norm. Lots of people meet each other at work. I know a couple that share a job. They work in the same office. I know another couple who were boss/employee. It didn't workout, but no one sued. This really sounds like corporate or gov't intrusion into people's personal lives. I say it's none of their business unless it crosses the line into quid pro quo. WHAT???? You've been in Calidornia too long...there are plenty of corporations in the midwest that vertainly do have those kind of policies in place, especially regarding a boss/employee relationship....get yuour head out of the sand, Jon...California is not the world... It's not, but it is the largest state. We do things right from time to time. When was that? |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Capt. JG" wrote in message You're a lawyer working on sexual harassment litigation I presume? I doubt it. Are you saying that all the 1000s of businesses are wrong? When did you become a spokesman for the thousands of businesses in the country? My guess is that they are far more up-to-date on the subject than thou. ?? Confused? I thought so. I guess you should talk to Larry Ellison. In any case, anyone can sue anyone for any reason, but that doesn't mean it'll get any where. You're just grasping at staws now. Nope. Like I said, you're unenlightened on this subject. Your information is about ten years out of date. As far as Larry Ellison is concerned, he'll never get sued for sexual harassment--he only has to write a nice 6-figure check to the agrieved young lady and she's happy. Are you suggesting that we should investigate and prosecute all those people who lie about an affair in divorce court for example? I still have no idea what you're asking, considering I never advocated anything at all. I was merely pointing out the error of your thinking. So, you can't accept the possibility that a Democrat might actually have the best interests of the country in mind. Got it. It was a joke, son. "In your opinion" In my opinion, he's a damn liar and should be impeached. It's not going to happen, but it should. Your hatred for Bush has distorted any attempt at reason, Jon. And, he should be forgiven... no big deal, 1000s died, and Bush **may** have lied... *probably* lied (IN MY OPINION), but that's ok with you. You don't care. I never indicated that it's "okay" with me. But I'm openminded enough to wait until some substantive evidence that he lied is presented. So far all I've heard from you is left-wing hatred and antipathy toward a President who disagrees with your personal brand of dogma. But, you sure do care about Clinton's wandering among young women. I couldn't care less what Bill Clinton did with that porky pig, Monica Lewinski. But he was accused by several other women of sexual harassment, dating from his days as governor of Arkansas all the way to the White House. Some of those women were fired for not playing along with him. The left-wing women's rights organizations should have been outraged, but they placed political dogma ahead of their core beliefs, obviously. Hypocrites of the first degree. Max |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Capt. JG" wrote in message Wrong about what? There are typically no corporate rules about dating a co-worker, boss, or subordinate. It might not be a good idea, but it's not against the law. Most sexual harassment suits aren't matters of criminal codes. They are civil suits. If there are such rules, they're hard to enforce. Enforcement is irrelevant. If the secretary sues the boss after being dumped, she generally wins. We're talking civil suits, not criminal trials. Sometimes the result is messy and sometimes the result is a lawsuit, but that isn't the norm. Lots of people meet each other at work. I know a couple that share a job. They work in the same office. I know another couple who were boss/employee. It didn't workout, but no one sued. This really sounds like corporate or gov't intrusion into people's personal lives. I say it's none of their business unless it crosses the line into quid pro quo. No one is intruding in anyone's business. It's a matter of civil litigation, Jon. Not lawbreaking. You have a tough time with that distinction, don't you? Max |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "katy" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "katy" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: You're a lawyer working on sexual harassment litigation I presume? I doubt it. Are you saying that all the 1000s of businesses are wrong? I'm a retired HR Manager with experience in this and you are wrong... Wrong about what? There are typically no corporate rules about dating a co-worker, boss, or subordinate. It might not be a good idea, but it's not against the law. If there are such rules, they're hard to enforce. Sometimes the result is messy and sometimes the result is a lawsuit, but that isn't the norm. Lots of people meet each other at work. I know a couple that share a job. They work in the same office. I know another couple who were boss/employee. It didn't workout, but no one sued. This really sounds like corporate or gov't intrusion into people's personal lives. I say it's none of their business unless it crosses the line into quid pro quo. WHAT???? You've been in Calidornia too long...there are plenty of corporations in the midwest that vertainly do have those kind of policies in place, especially regarding a boss/employee relationship....get yuour head out of the sand, Jon...California is not the world... It's not, but it is the largest state. We do things right from time to time. Like your energy policy? Like your immigration policies? Sorry, couldn't help that. Too convenient. Max |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"katy" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "katy" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "katy" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: You're a lawyer working on sexual harassment litigation I presume? I doubt it. Are you saying that all the 1000s of businesses are wrong? I'm a retired HR Manager with experience in this and you are wrong... Wrong about what? There are typically no corporate rules about dating a co-worker, boss, or subordinate. It might not be a good idea, but it's not against the law. If there are such rules, they're hard to enforce. Sometimes the result is messy and sometimes the result is a lawsuit, but that isn't the norm. Lots of people meet each other at work. I know a couple that share a job. They work in the same office. I know another couple who were boss/employee. It didn't workout, but no one sued. This really sounds like corporate or gov't intrusion into people's personal lives. I say it's none of their business unless it crosses the line into quid pro quo. WHAT???? You've been in Calidornia too long...there are plenty of corporations in the midwest that vertainly do have those kind of policies in place, especially regarding a boss/employee relationship....get yuour head out of the sand, Jon...California is not the world... It's not, but it is the largest state. We do things right from time to time. When was that? Arnold. g -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "katy" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "katy" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: You're a lawyer working on sexual harassment litigation I presume? I doubt it. Are you saying that all the 1000s of businesses are wrong? I'm a retired HR Manager with experience in this and you are wrong... Wrong about what? There are typically no corporate rules about dating a co-worker, boss, or subordinate. It might not be a good idea, but it's not against the law. If there are such rules, they're hard to enforce. Sometimes the result is messy and sometimes the result is a lawsuit, but that isn't the norm. Lots of people meet each other at work. I know a couple that share a job. They work in the same office. I know another couple who were boss/employee. It didn't workout, but no one sued. This really sounds like corporate or gov't intrusion into people's personal lives. I say it's none of their business unless it crosses the line into quid pro quo. WHAT???? You've been in Calidornia too long...there are plenty of corporations in the midwest that vertainly do have those kind of policies in place, especially regarding a boss/employee relationship....get yuour head out of the sand, Jon...California is not the world... It's not, but it is the largest state. We do things right from time to time. Like your energy policy? Like your immigration policies? Sorry, couldn't help that. Too convenient. Max I guess that's how the fly-over states feel. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message Wrong about what? There are typically no corporate rules about dating a co-worker, boss, or subordinate. It might not be a good idea, but it's not against the law. Most sexual harassment suits aren't matters of criminal codes. They are civil suits. If there are such rules, they're hard to enforce. Enforcement is irrelevant. If the secretary sues the boss after being dumped, she generally wins. We're talking civil suits, not criminal trials. Perjury is perjury. Sometimes the result is messy and sometimes the result is a lawsuit, but that isn't the norm. Lots of people meet each other at work. I know a couple that share a job. They work in the same office. I know another couple who were boss/employee. It didn't workout, but no one sued. This really sounds like corporate or gov't intrusion into people's personal lives. I say it's none of their business unless it crosses the line into quid pro quo. No one is intruding in anyone's business. It's a matter of civil litigation, Jon. Not lawbreaking. You have a tough time with that distinction, don't you? So, which is it... should Clinton have been in civil court or criminal court? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Maxprop" wrote in message
k.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message You're a lawyer working on sexual harassment litigation I presume? I doubt it. Are you saying that all the 1000s of businesses are wrong? When did you become a spokesman for the thousands of businesses in the country? My guess is that they are far more up-to-date on the subject than thou. When did you become a spokesman for moral purity? My guess is that you aren't much involved in corporate life. I guess you should talk to Larry Ellison. In any case, anyone can sue anyone for any reason, but that doesn't mean it'll get any where. You're just grasping at staws now. Nope. Like I said, you're unenlightened on this subject. Your information is about ten years out of date. As far as Larry Ellison is concerned, he'll never get sued for sexual harassment--he only has to write a nice 6-figure check to the agrieved young lady and she's happy. According to you. Are you suggesting that we should investigate and prosecute all those people who lie about an affair in divorce court for example? I still have no idea what you're asking, considering I never advocated anything at all. No kidding. Really? So, you can't accept the possibility that a Democrat might actually have the best interests of the country in mind. Got it. It was a joke, son. Yes, I'm still laughing. "In your opinion" In my opinion, he's a damn liar and should be impeached. It's not going to happen, but it should. Your hatred for Bush has distorted any attempt at reason, Jon. My hatred of Bush is your fantasy. And, he should be forgiven... no big deal, 1000s died, and Bush **may** have lied... *probably* lied (IN MY OPINION), but that's ok with you. You don't care. I never indicated that it's "okay" with me. But I'm openminded enough to wait until some substantive evidence that he lied is presented. So far all I've heard from you is left-wing hatred and antipathy toward a President who disagrees with your personal brand of dogma. Have a trial. Justice should prevail. But, you sure do care about Clinton's wandering among young women. I couldn't care less what Bill Clinton did with that porky pig, Monica Lewinski. But he was accused by several other women of sexual harassment, dating from his days as governor of Arkansas all the way to the White House. Some of those women were fired for not playing along with him. The left-wing women's rights organizations should have been outraged, but they placed political dogma ahead of their core beliefs, obviously. Hypocrites of the first degree. Of course you do! You brought it up. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
Capt. JG wrote:
"Maxprop" wrote in message nk.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message Wrong about what? There are typically no corporate rules about dating a co-worker, boss, or subordinate. It might not be a good idea, but it's not against the law. Most sexual harassment suits aren't matters of criminal codes. They are civil suits. If there are such rules, they're hard to enforce. Enforcement is irrelevant. If the secretary sues the boss after being dumped, she generally wins. We're talking civil suits, not criminal trials. Perjury is perjury. Sometimes the result is messy and sometimes the result is a lawsuit, but that isn't the norm. Lots of people meet each other at work. I know a couple that share a job. They work in the same office. I know another couple who were boss/employee. It didn't workout, but no one sued. This really sounds like corporate or gov't intrusion into people's personal lives. I say it's none of their business unless it crosses the line into quid pro quo. No one is intruding in anyone's business. It's a matter of civil litigation, Jon. Not lawbreaking. You have a tough time with that distinction, don't you? So, which is it... should Clinton have been in civil court or criminal court? Civil for the sexual harrassment issues and criminal for the lying about it...he perjured himself...that's criminal... |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
katy wrote:
So, which is it... should Clinton have been in civil court or criminal court? Civil for the sexual harrassment issues and criminal for the lying about it...he perjured himself...that's criminal... You'd press a criminal prosecution upon a President for such a small thing? In the overall scheme of things the only thing that would be accomplished would be to further harm the repution of the USA. Ask yourself why Ford gave Nixon immunity. Cheers Marty ------------ And now a word from our sponsor --------------------- For a secure high performance FTP using SSL/TLS encryption upgrade to SurgeFTP ---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgeftp.htm ---- |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"katy" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "Maxprop" wrote in message nk.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message Wrong about what? There are typically no corporate rules about dating a co-worker, boss, or subordinate. It might not be a good idea, but it's not against the law. Most sexual harassment suits aren't matters of criminal codes. They are civil suits. If there are such rules, they're hard to enforce. Enforcement is irrelevant. If the secretary sues the boss after being dumped, she generally wins. We're talking civil suits, not criminal trials. Perjury is perjury. Sometimes the result is messy and sometimes the result is a lawsuit, but that isn't the norm. Lots of people meet each other at work. I know a couple that share a job. They work in the same office. I know another couple who were boss/employee. It didn't workout, but no one sued. This really sounds like corporate or gov't intrusion into people's personal lives. I say it's none of their business unless it crosses the line into quid pro quo. No one is intruding in anyone's business. It's a matter of civil litigation, Jon. Not lawbreaking. You have a tough time with that distinction, don't you? So, which is it... should Clinton have been in civil court or criminal court? Civil for the sexual harrassment issues and criminal for the lying about it...he perjured himself...that's criminal... And, compared to what Bush lied about, you think that's about the same level, right? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
... katy wrote: So, which is it... should Clinton have been in civil court or criminal court? Civil for the sexual harrassment issues and criminal for the lying about it...he perjured himself...that's criminal... You'd press a criminal prosecution upon a President for such a small thing? In the overall scheme of things the only thing that would be accomplished would be to further harm the repution of the USA. Ask yourself why Ford gave Nixon immunity. Cheers Marty ------------ And now a word from our sponsor --------------------- For a secure high performance FTP using SSL/TLS encryption upgrade to SurgeFTP ---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgeftp.htm ---- When it comes to hating Clinton, there is no end to the madness. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
Martin Baxter wrote:
katy wrote: So, which is it... should Clinton have been in civil court or criminal court? Civil for the sexual harrassment issues and criminal for the lying about it...he perjured himself...that's criminal... You'd press a criminal prosecution upon a President for such a small thing? In the overall scheme of things the only thing that would be accomplished would be to further harm the repution of the USA. Ask yourself why Ford gave Nixon immunity. Cheers Marty ------------ And now a word from our sponsor --------------------- For a secure high performance FTP using SSL/TLS encryption upgrade to SurgeFTP ---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgeftp.htm ---- He shouldn'y have...he would have been re-elected if he had not pardoned Nixon and the US would have had a decent and moral President for 6 years.... |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Maxprop" wrote in message hlink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message Wrong about what? There are typically no corporate rules about dating a co-worker, boss, or subordinate. It might not be a good idea, but it's not against the law. Most sexual harassment suits aren't matters of criminal codes. They are civil suits. If there are such rules, they're hard to enforce. Enforcement is irrelevant. If the secretary sues the boss after being dumped, she generally wins. We're talking civil suits, not criminal trials. Perjury is perjury. Sometimes the result is messy and sometimes the result is a lawsuit, but that isn't the norm. Lots of people meet each other at work. I know a couple that share a job. They work in the same office. I know another couple who were boss/employee. It didn't workout, but no one sued. This really sounds like corporate or gov't intrusion into people's personal lives. I say it's none of their business unless it crosses the line into quid pro quo. No one is intruding in anyone's business. It's a matter of civil litigation, Jon. Not lawbreaking. You have a tough time with that distinction, don't you? So, which is it... should Clinton have been in civil court or criminal court? Civil for the sexual harrassment issues and criminal for the lying about it...he perjured himself...that's criminal... And, compared to what Bush lied about, you think that's about the same level, right? I didn't know Bush lied in a court of law...didn't know he had been brought up on charges...it has not been proven that Bush lied...it has been proven that Clinton lied...when Bush is tried and prosecuted for lying, that would be a different situation...but that hasn't happened...and won't happen...and until; then, if you are an upholder of the Constitution, you must proceed as if he were innocent...give it a rest... |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:46:50 -0500, katy wrote
(in article ): Capt. JG wrote: "katy" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Maxprop" wrote in message nk.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message Wrong about what? There are typically no corporate rules about dating a co-worker, boss, or subordinate. It might not be a good idea, but it's not against the law. Most sexual harassment suits aren't matters of criminal codes. They are civil suits. If there are such rules, they're hard to enforce. Enforcement is irrelevant. If the secretary sues the boss after being dumped, she generally wins. We're talking civil suits, not criminal trials. Perjury is perjury. Sometimes the result is messy and sometimes the result is a lawsuit, but that isn't the norm. Lots of people meet each other at work. I know a couple that share a job. They work in the same office. I know another couple who were boss/employee. It didn't workout, but no one sued. This really sounds like corporate or gov't intrusion into people's personal lives. I say it's none of their business unless it crosses the line into quid pro quo. No one is intruding in anyone's business. It's a matter of civil litigation, Jon. Not lawbreaking. You have a tough time with that distinction, don't you? So, which is it... should Clinton have been in civil court or criminal court? Civil for the sexual harrassment issues and criminal for the lying about it...he perjured himself...that's criminal... And, compared to what Bush lied about, you think that's about the same level, right? I didn't know Bush lied in a court of law...didn't know he had been brought up on charges...it has not been proven that Bush lied...it has been proven that Clinton lied...when Bush is tried and prosecuted for lying, that would be a different situation...but that hasn't happened...and won't happen...and until; then, if you are an upholder of the Constitution, you must proceed as if he were innocent...give it a rest... Katy, Even Bush has admitted he was wrong/ spin for lying. Maybe it is time to get on with the reality. I hate to be the one to break it to you. Is it 2008 yet? -- Mundo, The Captain who is a bully and an ass |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
Mundo wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:46:50 -0500, katy wrote (in article ): Capt. JG wrote: "katy" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Maxprop" wrote in message rthlink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message Wrong about what? There are typically no corporate rules about dating a co-worker, boss, or subordinate. It might not be a good idea, but it's not against the law. Most sexual harassment suits aren't matters of criminal codes. They are civil suits. If there are such rules, they're hard to enforce. Enforcement is irrelevant. If the secretary sues the boss after being dumped, she generally wins. We're talking civil suits, not criminal trials. Perjury is perjury. Sometimes the result is messy and sometimes the result is a lawsuit, but that isn't the norm. Lots of people meet each other at work. I know a couple that share a job. They work in the same office. I know another couple who were boss/employee. It didn't workout, but no one sued. This really sounds like corporate or gov't intrusion into people's personal lives. I say it's none of their business unless it crosses the line into quid pro quo. No one is intruding in anyone's business. It's a matter of civil litigation, Jon. Not lawbreaking. You have a tough time with that distinction, don't you? So, which is it... should Clinton have been in civil court or criminal court? Civil for the sexual harrassment issues and criminal for the lying about it...he perjured himself...that's criminal... And, compared to what Bush lied about, you think that's about the same level, right? I didn't know Bush lied in a court of law...didn't know he had been brought up on charges...it has not been proven that Bush lied...it has been proven that Clinton lied...when Bush is tried and prosecuted for lying, that would be a different situation...but that hasn't happened...and won't happen...and until; then, if you are an upholder of the Constitution, you must proceed as if he were innocent...give it a rest... Katy, Even Bush has admitted he was wrong/ spin for lying. Maybe it is time to get on with the reality. I hate to be the one to break it to you. Is it 2008 yet? Since when is the admission of being wrong a lie? But then, not many here would be able to answer that since no one here is ever wrong...Call for his impeachment...get him to trial...prove it..until then, he's deemed innocent... |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"katy" wrote Since when is the admission of being wrong a lie? But then, not many here would be able to answer that since no one here is ever wrong...Call for his impeachment...get him to trial...prove it..until then, he's deemed innocent... He's definitely innocent. Innocent by reason of insanity.... Cheers, Ellen |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"katy" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "katy" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Maxprop" wrote in message thlink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message Wrong about what? There are typically no corporate rules about dating a co-worker, boss, or subordinate. It might not be a good idea, but it's not against the law. Most sexual harassment suits aren't matters of criminal codes. They are civil suits. If there are such rules, they're hard to enforce. Enforcement is irrelevant. If the secretary sues the boss after being dumped, she generally wins. We're talking civil suits, not criminal trials. Perjury is perjury. Sometimes the result is messy and sometimes the result is a lawsuit, but that isn't the norm. Lots of people meet each other at work. I know a couple that share a job. They work in the same office. I know another couple who were boss/employee. It didn't workout, but no one sued. This really sounds like corporate or gov't intrusion into people's personal lives. I say it's none of their business unless it crosses the line into quid pro quo. No one is intruding in anyone's business. It's a matter of civil litigation, Jon. Not lawbreaking. You have a tough time with that distinction, don't you? So, which is it... should Clinton have been in civil court or criminal court? Civil for the sexual harrassment issues and criminal for the lying about it...he perjured himself...that's criminal... And, compared to what Bush lied about, you think that's about the same level, right? I didn't know Bush lied in a court of law...didn't know he had been brought up on charges...it has not been proven that Bush lied...it has been proven that Clinton lied...when Bush is tried and prosecuted for lying, that would be a different situation...but that hasn't happened...and won't happen...and until; then, if you are an upholder of the Constitution, you must proceed as if he were innocent...give it a rest... I'm calling for an impeachment because Bush lied. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. He needs to have the opportunity. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Mundo" wrote in message
. net... On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:46:50 -0500, katy wrote (in article ): Capt. JG wrote: "katy" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Maxprop" wrote in message nk.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message Wrong about what? There are typically no corporate rules about dating a co-worker, boss, or subordinate. It might not be a good idea, but it's not against the law. Most sexual harassment suits aren't matters of criminal codes. They are civil suits. If there are such rules, they're hard to enforce. Enforcement is irrelevant. If the secretary sues the boss after being dumped, she generally wins. We're talking civil suits, not criminal trials. Perjury is perjury. Sometimes the result is messy and sometimes the result is a lawsuit, but that isn't the norm. Lots of people meet each other at work. I know a couple that share a job. They work in the same office. I know another couple who were boss/employee. It didn't workout, but no one sued. This really sounds like corporate or gov't intrusion into people's personal lives. I say it's none of their business unless it crosses the line into quid pro quo. No one is intruding in anyone's business. It's a matter of civil litigation, Jon. Not lawbreaking. You have a tough time with that distinction, don't you? So, which is it... should Clinton have been in civil court or criminal court? Civil for the sexual harrassment issues and criminal for the lying about it...he perjured himself...that's criminal... And, compared to what Bush lied about, you think that's about the same level, right? I didn't know Bush lied in a court of law...didn't know he had been brought up on charges...it has not been proven that Bush lied...it has been proven that Clinton lied...when Bush is tried and prosecuted for lying, that would be a different situation...but that hasn't happened...and won't happen...and until; then, if you are an upholder of the Constitution, you must proceed as if he were innocent...give it a rest... Katy, Even Bush has admitted he was wrong/ spin for lying. Maybe it is time to get on with the reality. I hate to be the one to break it to you. Is it 2008 yet? -- Mundo, The Captain who is a bully and an ass Katy won't believe it. Neither will Max. They believe he just couldn't have lied. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"katy" wrote in message
... Mundo wrote: On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:46:50 -0500, katy wrote (in article ): Capt. JG wrote: "katy" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Maxprop" wrote in message arthlink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message Wrong about what? There are typically no corporate rules about dating a co-worker, boss, or subordinate. It might not be a good idea, but it's not against the law. Most sexual harassment suits aren't matters of criminal codes. They are civil suits. If there are such rules, they're hard to enforce. Enforcement is irrelevant. If the secretary sues the boss after being dumped, she generally wins. We're talking civil suits, not criminal trials. Perjury is perjury. Sometimes the result is messy and sometimes the result is a lawsuit, but that isn't the norm. Lots of people meet each other at work. I know a couple that share a job. They work in the same office. I know another couple who were boss/employee. It didn't workout, but no one sued. This really sounds like corporate or gov't intrusion into people's personal lives. I say it's none of their business unless it crosses the line into quid pro quo. No one is intruding in anyone's business. It's a matter of civil litigation, Jon. Not lawbreaking. You have a tough time with that distinction, don't you? So, which is it... should Clinton have been in civil court or criminal court? Civil for the sexual harrassment issues and criminal for the lying about it...he perjured himself...that's criminal... And, compared to what Bush lied about, you think that's about the same level, right? I didn't know Bush lied in a court of law...didn't know he had been brought up on charges...it has not been proven that Bush lied...it has been proven that Clinton lied...when Bush is tried and prosecuted for lying, that would be a different situation...but that hasn't happened...and won't happen...and until; then, if you are an upholder of the Constitution, you must proceed as if he were innocent...give it a rest... Katy, Even Bush has admitted he was wrong/ spin for lying. Maybe it is time to get on with the reality. I hate to be the one to break it to you. Is it 2008 yet? Since when is the admission of being wrong a lie? But then, not many here would be able to answer that since no one here is ever wrong...Call for his impeachment...get him to trial...prove it..until then, he's deemed innocent... He admitted he mislead the people re the Rumsfeld resignation. He lied on national TV when he said he never used the term "cut and run" with respect to Democrats. He's lied at least that many times, and he's probably lied a lot more. I think we should find out. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
Capt. JG wrote:
"Mundo" wrote in message . net... On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:46:50 -0500, katy wrote (in article ): Capt. JG wrote: "katy" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Maxprop" wrote in message arthlink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message Wrong about what? There are typically no corporate rules about dating a co-worker, boss, or subordinate. It might not be a good idea, but it's not against the law. Most sexual harassment suits aren't matters of criminal codes. They are civil suits. If there are such rules, they're hard to enforce. Enforcement is irrelevant. If the secretary sues the boss after being dumped, she generally wins. We're talking civil suits, not criminal trials. Perjury is perjury. Sometimes the result is messy and sometimes the result is a lawsuit, but that isn't the norm. Lots of people meet each other at work. I know a couple that share a job. They work in the same office. I know another couple who were boss/employee. It didn't workout, but no one sued. This really sounds like corporate or gov't intrusion into people's personal lives. I say it's none of their business unless it crosses the line into quid pro quo. No one is intruding in anyone's business. It's a matter of civil litigation, Jon. Not lawbreaking. You have a tough time with that distinction, don't you? So, which is it... should Clinton have been in civil court or criminal court? Civil for the sexual harrassment issues and criminal for the lying about it...he perjured himself...that's criminal... And, compared to what Bush lied about, you think that's about the same level, right? I didn't know Bush lied in a court of law...didn't know he had been brought up on charges...it has not been proven that Bush lied...it has been proven that Clinton lied...when Bush is tried and prosecuted for lying, that would be a different situation...but that hasn't happened...and won't happen...and until; then, if you are an upholder of the Constitution, you must proceed as if he were innocent...give it a rest... Katy, Even Bush has admitted he was wrong/ spin for lying. Maybe it is time to get on with the reality. I hate to be the one to break it to you. Is it 2008 yet? -- Mundo, The Captain who is a bully and an ass Katy won't believe it. Neither will Max. They believe he just couldn't have lied. No..I believe that we do not know the whole story and that Pelosi's dropping the whole thing is very telling. I believe that he has the right, like every other American, to be proven innocent or guity and not tried on the streets...I do not like GW Bush..I don't like the war...but I do stand by the Constitution and its ability to do what it is supposed to do...and that's the only way to say qualitatively or quantitatively that he lied. Jon Ganz saying so doesn't cut it,because after all, all Jon Ganz is is some computer geek on Usenet like the rest of us...so call your representative and your Senator, get up a petition, and see what happens. AThen we'll talk. |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"katy" wrote in message
... Katy won't believe it. Neither will Max. They believe he just couldn't have lied. No..I believe that we do not know the whole story and that Pelosi's dropping the whole thing is very telling. I believe that he has the right, like every other American, to be proven innocent or guity and not tried on the streets...I do not like GW Bush..I don't like the war...but I do stand by the Constitution and its ability to do what it is supposed to do...and that's the only way to say qualitatively or quantitatively that he lied. Jon Ganz saying so doesn't cut it,because after all, all Jon Ganz is is some computer geek on Usenet like the rest of us...so call your representative and your Senator, get up a petition, and see what happens. AThen we'll talk. We should have a full investigation. Jon Ganz saying so goes along with the huge number of other people, many of whom know a lot more than Jon Ganz, that Bush lied. There will be multiple investigations I'm certain. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Capt. JG" wrote in message So, which is it... should Clinton have been in civil court or criminal court? Criminal. He wasn't litigated for sexual harassment. He was tried for lying to a federal grand jury. That's a crime. Of course it isn't a crime in the eyes of Democrats, who believe that provided the lie is just a little white one, about peccadilloes, it's okay. Max |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Martin Baxter" wrote in message ... katy wrote: So, which is it... should Clinton have been in civil court or criminal court? Civil for the sexual harrassment issues and criminal for the lying about it...he perjured himself...that's criminal... You'd press a criminal prosecution upon a President for such a small thing? In the overall scheme of things the only thing that would be accomplished would be to further harm the repution of the USA. Ask yourself why Ford gave Nixon immunity. It was a conceptual question, Marty. The Senate did the right thing in failing to convict Clinton and avoiding converting what was a minor scandal into a major governmental fiasco. Ford, as well, did the right thing. Jon wants to see Bush impeached and imprisoned. Of course he doesn't have the best interest of the country at heart. Max |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Martin Baxter" wrote in message ... katy wrote: So, which is it... should Clinton have been in civil court or criminal court? Civil for the sexual harrassment issues and criminal for the lying about it...he perjured himself...that's criminal... You'd press a criminal prosecution upon a President for such a small thing? In the overall scheme of things the only thing that would be accomplished would be to further harm the repution of the USA. Ask yourself why Ford gave Nixon immunity. Cheers Marty ------------ And now a word from our sponsor --------------------- For a secure high performance FTP using SSL/TLS encryption upgrade to SurgeFTP ---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgeftp.htm ---- When it comes to hating Bush, there is no end to the madness. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message ... Katy won't believe it. Neither will Max. They believe he just couldn't have lied. No..I believe that we do not know the whole story and that Pelosi's dropping the whole thing is very telling. I believe that he has the right, like every other American, to be proven innocent or guity and not tried on the streets...I do not like GW Bush..I don't like the war...but I do stand by the Constitution and its ability to do what it is supposed to do...and that's the only way to say qualitatively or quantitatively that he lied. Jon Ganz saying so doesn't cut it,because after all, all Jon Ganz is is some computer geek on Usenet like the rest of us...so call your representative and your Senator, get up a petition, and see what happens. AThen we'll talk. We should have a full investigation. Jon Ganz saying so goes along with the huge number of other people, many of whom know a lot more than Jon Ganz, that Bush lied. There will be multiple investigations I'm certain. Bring it on, then..but until that time..he is presumed innocent until proven guilty...that's the law.. |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Mundo" wrote in message Katy, Even Bush has admitted he was wrong/ spin for lying. Maybe it is time to get on with the reality. I hate to be the one to break it to you. Is it 2008 yet? -- Mundo, The Captain who is a bully and an ass Katy won't believe it. Neither will Max. They believe he just couldn't have lied. Nice obfuscation, Jon and Mundo. Bush admitted to being misleading about Rumsfeld's resignation, but not about the important issue--the WMDs. Big difference. Max |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message k.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message You're a lawyer working on sexual harassment litigation I presume? I doubt it. Are you saying that all the 1000s of businesses are wrong? When did you become a spokesman for the thousands of businesses in the country? My guess is that they are far more up-to-date on the subject than thou. When did you become a spokesman for moral purity? My guess is that you aren't much involved in corporate life. This is an asinine comment, Jon. I'm not making any value judgements--only bringing you up to date with respect to recent court decisions. I wasn't the judge in such decisions, and I've opined that the decisions were probably wrong. But that doesn't alter the fact that they were made, nor the fact that you're ignorant of them. No kidding. Really? Really. Do you have any idea what you're asking?? "In your opinion" In my opinion, he's a damn liar and should be impeached. It's not going to happen, but it should. Your hatred for Bush has distorted any attempt at reason, Jon. My hatred of Bush is your fantasy. Now I'm really getting worried about you. Heretofore you've shown some degree of equanimity. Now you're just plain nuts. Re-read your comment above, top paragraph. Have a trial. Justice should prevail. Right. How many millions of wasted dollars were spent on the Ken Starr investigations of Clinton? Are you advocating that we bog the country down and spend millions more for the purpose of excoriating someone for whom you hold so much hatred? You're nuts. Max |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net... "Martin Baxter" wrote in message ... katy wrote: So, which is it... should Clinton have been in civil court or criminal court? Civil for the sexual harrassment issues and criminal for the lying about it...he perjured himself...that's criminal... You'd press a criminal prosecution upon a President for such a small thing? In the overall scheme of things the only thing that would be accomplished would be to further harm the repution of the USA. Ask yourself why Ford gave Nixon immunity. It was a conceptual question, Marty. The Senate did the right thing in failing to convict Clinton and avoiding converting what was a minor scandal into a major governmental fiasco. Ford, as well, did the right thing. And, the right-wing nuts wasted $70 million dollars, but that's ok, because Max can claim the Senate didn't find him not guilty. Jon wants to see Bush impeached and imprisoned. Of course he doesn't have the best interest of the country at heart. That would be in the best interest of the country! -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"katy" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "katy" wrote in message ... Katy won't believe it. Neither will Max. They believe he just couldn't have lied. No..I believe that we do not know the whole story and that Pelosi's dropping the whole thing is very telling. I believe that he has the right, like every other American, to be proven innocent or guity and not tried on the streets...I do not like GW Bush..I don't like the war...but I do stand by the Constitution and its ability to do what it is supposed to do...and that's the only way to say qualitatively or quantitatively that he lied. Jon Ganz saying so doesn't cut it,because after all, all Jon Ganz is is some computer geek on Usenet like the rest of us...so call your representative and your Senator, get up a petition, and see what happens. AThen we'll talk. We should have a full investigation. Jon Ganz saying so goes along with the huge number of other people, many of whom know a lot more than Jon Ganz, that Bush lied. There will be multiple investigations I'm certain. Bring it on, then..but until that time..he is presumed innocent until proven guilty...that's the law.. And, he's a liar. Don't forget that small fact. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Mundo" wrote in message Katy, Even Bush has admitted he was wrong/ spin for lying. Maybe it is time to get on with the reality. I hate to be the one to break it to you. Is it 2008 yet? -- Mundo, The Captain who is a bully and an ass Katy won't believe it. Neither will Max. They believe he just couldn't have lied. Nice obfuscation, Jon and Mundo. Bush admitted to being misleading about Rumsfeld's resignation, but not about the important issue--the WMDs. Big difference. Max You're right. He didn't admit lying. We might want to not take him at his word, since he's a confessed liar. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message So, which is it... should Clinton have been in civil court or criminal court? Criminal. He wasn't litigated for sexual harassment. He was tried for lying to a federal grand jury. That's a crime. Of course it isn't a crime in the eyes of Democrats, who believe that provided the lie is just a little white one, about peccadilloes, it's okay. Max Like Bush lying... got it. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Maxprop" wrote in message
k.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message k.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message You're a lawyer working on sexual harassment litigation I presume? I doubt it. Are you saying that all the 1000s of businesses are wrong? When did you become a spokesman for the thousands of businesses in the country? My guess is that they are far more up-to-date on the subject than thou. When did you become a spokesman for moral purity? My guess is that you aren't much involved in corporate life. This is an asinine comment, Jon. I'm not making any value judgements--only bringing you up to date with respect to recent court decisions. I wasn't the judge in such decisions, and I've opined that the decisions were probably wrong. But that doesn't alter the fact that they were made, nor the fact that you're ignorant of them. So, you're an attorney? I don't think so. Now I'm really getting worried about you. Heretofore you've shown some degree of equanimity. Now you're just plain nuts. Re-read your comment above, top paragraph. I dislike Bush quite a lot, but hate isn't the emotion. Have a trial. Justice should prevail. Right. How many millions of wasted dollars were spent on the Ken Starr investigations of Clinton? Are you advocating that we bog the country down and spend millions more for the purpose of excoriating someone for whom you hold so much hatred? You're nuts. Wasted was right. Do you think it would be a waste to try someone who allegedly took us to war by lying about it? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message nk.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Mundo" wrote in message Katy, Even Bush has admitted he was wrong/ spin for lying. Maybe it is time to get on with the reality. I hate to be the one to break it to you. Is it 2008 yet? -- Mundo, The Captain who is a bully and an ass Katy won't believe it. Neither will Max. They believe he just couldn't have lied. Nice obfuscation, Jon and Mundo. Bush admitted to being misleading about Rumsfeld's resignation, but not about the important issue--the WMDs. Big difference. Max You're right. He didn't admit lying. We might want to not take him at his word, since he's a confessed liar. You are consumed with hatred for Bush. Tell me, why did you hate your mother? Did you hate your father, too? Did you want to kill your father? Did you ever kill one of your pets? A neighbor boy disappeared when you were ten--did you kill him? Have you ever had thoughts of suicide? Well, time's up. We'll have to continue this next week. Max |
Ronald Reagan Freedom Square
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message k.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ... "Maxprop" wrote in message k.net... "Capt. JG" wrote in message You're a lawyer working on sexual harassment litigation I presume? I doubt it. Are you saying that all the 1000s of businesses are wrong? When did you become a spokesman for the thousands of businesses in the country? My guess is that they are far more up-to-date on the subject than thou. When did you become a spokesman for moral purity? My guess is that you aren't much involved in corporate life. This is an asinine comment, Jon. I'm not making any value judgements--only bringing you up to date with respect to recent court decisions. I wasn't the judge in such decisions, and I've opined that the decisions were probably wrong. But that doesn't alter the fact that they were made, nor the fact that you're ignorant of them. So, you're an attorney? I don't think so. I give up. Beam me up, Scotty. There's no sign of sentient life here. Max |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com