|
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:55 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com