Yes, there is something inherently wrong with an older man who takes
advantage of his position of power and authority to exploit a young female
intern who is at the bottom rung of power. Especially when it is an office
as important as the President of the United States. Sexual exploitation
and/or manipulation does not belong in the workplace.

But you don't get that do you?


The office of the President is essentially a meaningless figurehead
position. The true minds and influential players are his/her cabinet.
I don't fault Bush directly for his failed policies. Rumsfeld, Rice,
Wolfowitz, Ashcroft etc break down the president to make these
decisions. Bush isn't evil or dangerous...he's just a pompous fool
who's out of touch with the ordinary American.

The fact that Clinton received some sexual favors from Ms. Lewinsky
apparently helped him to perform his job quite well, promoting peace
in the mideast instead of pandering to the religious right so firmly
trying to set the stage for Israel according to their interpretation
of Revelations. I'm ashamed to be of the same congregation as these
freaks.

The very same conservatives I hear spewing that garbage about libs not
getting it are the same individuals who cowardly speak about what
they'd like to do to their female co-worker/subordinate along with
their colleagues during a happy hour conversation, then going home to
their wives...hypocrital mofos.



You
gotta admit, it's a lot more interesting than running a secret society
called the presidency for the past 4 years, head up by a supposedly
moral individual taking *way* too many vacations, skipping out on
National Guard service, insighting nationalistic, but mistaken for
patriotic, thoughts.

Gore "skipped out" of his tour of duty over in Vietnam. How come you
and others of your ilk never mention that fact?

What by the way are your military credentials or accomplishments?

Gore skipped out in Vietnam. There, I mentioned it. Bush skipped out
of service with the Guard in Texas. Which do you think is more
cowardly and unpatriotic?

My military accomplishments mean nothing. Never served. Proud of
being a civilian. Bush should say the same. There was nothing wrong
with doing Coke and drinking a lot. He should admit that too. People
would have a lot more respect for him (of course, he's lose out on a
lot of hypocritical conversative votes too)

And they water down the wage rates and benefit packages which undercuts
many skilled workers.

And the resulting product leaves much to be desired on the part of the
American consumer.

I have personally witnessed whole blocks of residential housing being built
without anybody that can speak English building them. Pseudo electricians
without any form of license or proof of qualifications, pseudo plumbers etc..
etc.. and these homes have NUMEROUS code violations.

How can a proper home be built by unqualified workers who can't possibly
read the National Electrical Code because they can't speak English and
their own education from their native country is on the grade-school level?

Taking jobs that nobody wants? Hardly. However a qualified, intelligent
and skilled electrician would certainly look elsewhere rather than work
for the watered down peanut wages that most homebuilders offer. Home
builders get away with these insulting wages (and code violations) by
exploiting immigrant workers AND taking advantage of over-worked
and underpaid city code enforcement officers any way that they can.

You are forgetting simple supply and demand factors that are covered
by economics 101. Too much supply equals reduced wages and
benefits. Quite simple. The allowing of hordes of illegal aliens
reduces the wage and benefits packages for many Americans.


You misunderstand me. Aside from my flaming response above in the
thread, I completely agree with you on this particular issue. Quality
suffers greatly when immigrant work is hastily dumped on us.
Responsible trade slowly assimilates workforce from these other
countries into our own economy. Slapping together an infrastructure
based out of Mexico or India is asking for trouble. Similarly,
homebuilders inflating profits by dumping illegal immigrants into our
workforce damages long-term viability of these companies: Centex, D.R.
Horton, etc. I don't know which large homebuilders heavily rely on
this particular labor force, but it sure makes me think about who will
build my next home later this year. I may just have to buy a house
circa 1980 or so...

The only saving grace is the failing of companies due to bad labor.
In my case, I've witnessed this problem with programs written very
badly we've been fixing. As a contractor, I relish this situation,
but it may take some time for the "debugging" field to fluorish, as
bad code sets in across the board.


But, there's a problem
when an Indian, whose education and living expenses are often
government subsidized (ergo no student debt), attempts to steal a job
from a highly educated person just because they cost a lot less. A
shame that companies have learned a painful lesson by embracing the
tactic too quickly, with the breached privacy, inferior quality, and
backlash among the U.S. workforce. The real shame is, when a recovery
is in the works after the imminent demographic switch (retirees
fleeing the job market), they are the ones who'll be interviewed by
the interviewees. Have you ever offshored a major component of your
business? Yes, see ya!

My business is staffed by family and friends and those that I know
and trust when I need them (as in American citizens). I would
rather go out of business than hire illegal aliens or 'offshore' portions
of it to foreign workers.

You can offshore certain portions of your business, but only if it's
properly managed (vague term indeed), and the work involves less
critical processes to your business. A few Fortune 500 companies
actually lost money on the transition, and are faced with bad PR as
well as lower profitability. Double whammy.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:c3dhc2g=.5e4b8952ea1a9d772e28d61b97dfa2dc@107 8328834.nulluser.com...
Henry Blackmoore wrote:


I have personally witnessed whole blocks of residential housing being
built
without anybody that can speak English building them. Pseudo
electricians
without any form of license or proof of qualifications, pseudo
plumbers etc..
etc.. and these homes have NUMEROUS code violations.

How can a proper home be built by unqualified workers who can't possibly
read the National Electrical Code because they can't speak English and
their own education from their native country is on the grade-school
level?

Taking jobs that nobody wants? Hardly. However a qualified,
intelligent
and skilled electrician would certainly look elsewhere rather than work
for the watered down peanut wages that most homebuilders offer. Home
builders get away with these insulting wages (and code violations) by
exploiting immigrant workers AND taking advantage of over-worked
and underpaid city code enforcement officers any way that they can.


The reality is, most homebuilders (single-family houses, townhouses, and
low-rise apartments, the "stick-built" stuff), do not pay wages. They
pay via what one might call "piece work." So much to frame a house, so
much to wire a house, et cetera. And *that* is one reason why why most
skilled craftsmen have nothing to do with the contractors who build
houses.





And due to the increasing number of construction defect claims stemming
mainly from residential construction, some of the large national insurance
companies are no longer insuring construction contractors and builders who
primarily do residential construction (or a residential construction
exclusion is provided on the general liability and completed operations
coverage's).

In article , Harry Krause wrote:

I expect the dirtiest campaign ever from the Repubicans. Bush cannot run
on his record, because his record as president is horrible. He has to go
on the the attack.

Maybe the Bush camp can hire some Demorat experts in the dirty department?
There isn't any shortage of em'. Many would sell out for good money....

In article c3dhc2g=.5e4b8952ea1a9d772e28d61b97dfa2dc@1078328 834.nulluser.com, "Harry Krause" wrote:

Henry Blackmoore wrote:


I have personally witnessed whole blocks of residential housing being
built
without anybody that can speak English building them. Pseudo
electricians
without any form of license or proof of qualifications, pseudo
plumbers etc..
etc.. and these homes have NUMEROUS code violations.

How can a proper home be built by unqualified workers who can't possibly
read the National Electrical Code because they can't speak English and
their own education from their native country is on the grade-school
level?

Taking jobs that nobody wants? Hardly. However a qualified, intelligent
and skilled electrician would certainly look elsewhere rather than work
for the watered down peanut wages that most homebuilders offer. Home
builders get away with these insulting wages (and code violations) by
exploiting immigrant workers AND taking advantage of over-worked
and underpaid city code enforcement officers any way that they can.


The reality is, most homebuilders (single-family houses, townhouses, and
low-rise apartments, the "stick-built" stuff), do not pay wages. They
pay via what one might call "piece work." So much to frame a house, so
much to wire a house, et cetera. And *that* is one reason why why most
skilled craftsmen have nothing to do with the contractors who build houses.

And the resulting subcontractors who bid for that "piece work" hire
sub-standard workers (non-licensed etc..) for peanut wages.

If the hordes of cheap labor were taken away and proper enforcing of licensing
standards were upheld then subcontractors could no longer low-bid the job
down where it doesn't pay a sustainable wage for their workers. They
would have to bid higher or refuse jobs that don't meet their cost
requirements.

It wasn't that long ago that many residential homes around here were built
by union labor (translation real skilled & licensed workers). This is evident
by the union "bug" stamped in the concrete of walkways leading up to older
homes in many older neighborhoods. The quality of these homes is usually
superb.

Anyway that you cut it cheap illegal immigrant labor waters down the wage
benefit packages for American workers and the end result besides lost
jobs is poorer quality craftmanship and work for the American consumer.

In article , (John E. Jaku-Hing) wrote:


Yes, there is something inherently wrong with an older man who takes
advantage of his position of power and authority to exploit a young female
intern who is at the bottom rung of power. Especially when it is an office
as important as the President of the United States. Sexual exploitation
and/or manipulation does not belong in the workplace.

But you don't get that do you?


The office of the President is essentially a meaningless figurehead
position. The true minds and influential players are his/her cabinet.
I don't fault Bush directly for his failed policies. Rumsfeld, Rice,
Wolfowitz, Ashcroft etc break down the president to make these
decisions. Bush isn't evil or dangerous...he's just a pompous fool
who's out of touch with the ordinary American.

And Bill Clinton was in touch? With his gays in the military and national
health care plants (ala' Hillary).

The fact that Clinton received some sexual favors from Ms. Lewinsky
apparently helped him to perform his job quite well,

You think that the whole resulting scandal and perjury/impeachment trial
"helped" Clinton to perform his job well?

Are you feeling okay? You might be coming down with something.
Think about what you are saying.

You are talking about just the act itself. But what kind of leader
and person in a position of such great power would jeopardize
their office and career (not to mention their family)? A very short-sighted
one perhaps? One in which their libido in the short-term is much more
important than the health and welfare of their country/constituents in the
long.

What kind of leadership did the American people get from
this dishonorable scandalized man while he was tied up and busy with
lawyer, courts, interrogatories and the like?

On-the-job sexual solicitation of subordinates (and manipulation) is not
ethical or moral behavior that is fitting for any company or corporation
in America let alone the Oval Office. If you don't get this then you
are beyond help.

One thing for sure though Clinton was the Houdini who produced the
impossible-- a Republican Congress. LOL

Clinton also left behind a horrid ethical legacy. Clinton redrew the rules of
politics itself.. it used to be that if you got caught redhanded, you were
ashamed, and then you were gone. Not anymore! :^)


promoting peace
in the mideast instead of pandering to the religious right so firmly
trying to set the stage for Israel according to their interpretation
of Revelations. I'm ashamed to be of the same congregation as these
freaks.

And of course Bill Clinton was very effective dealing with terrorists after
the first World Trade Center attacks. His putting everything off onto the
office of the next President was a very strategic move.

The very same conservatives I hear spewing that garbage about libs not
getting it are the same individuals who cowardly speak about what
they'd like to do to their female co-worker/subordinate along with
their colleagues during a happy hour conversation, then going home to
their wives...hypocrital mofos.

I see. Liberal Democrats are all immune to this?




You
gotta admit, it's a lot more interesting than running a secret society
called the presidency for the past 4 years, head up by a supposedly
moral individual taking *way* too many vacations, skipping out on
National Guard service, insighting nationalistic, but mistaken for
patriotic, thoughts.



Gore "skipped out" of his tour of duty over in Vietnam. How come you
and others of your ilk never mention that fact?

What by the way are your military credentials or accomplishments?

Gore skipped out in Vietnam. There, I mentioned it. Bush skipped out
of service with the Guard in Texas. Which do you think is more
cowardly and unpatriotic?

Leaving one's fellow men behind in 'Nam. It took a lot more guts to fly
a jet than to be a Thai-stick smoking Remington raider eating ice cream
far from enemy lines because of daddy's suction...



My military accomplishments mean nothing.

Sure it does.

Never served.

It figures but you are calling implying or calling others cowards for
"skipping out"?

Proud of
being a civilian. Bush should say the same. There was nothing wrong
with doing Coke and drinking a lot. He should admit that too.

How do you know that he used cocaine? The evidence isn't there like
it was for Clinton and Gore as far as drug use. Please point me to the
appropriate DejaNews files showing your harping on these points back
in the Clinton era? Clinton didn't exactly admit to using marijuana with
his famous "but I didn't inhale" line. Nor did he admit to having a "nose
like a vacuum cleaner" for coke (but his half-brother readily admitted it.

People
would have a lot more respect for him (of course, he's lose out on a
lot of hypocritical conversative votes too)

IYO

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 19:32:52 +0000, Henry Blackmoore wrote:

Yes, there is something inherently wrong with an older man who takes
advantage of his position of power and authority to exploit a young
female intern who is at the bottom rung of power. Especially when it
is an office as important as the President of the United States.
Sexual exploitation and/or manipulation does not belong in the
workplace.

But you don't get that do you?

I do, it was a despicable act, with a power imbalance more approaching
rape than consensual sex.


And of course Bill Clinton was very effective dealing with terrorists
after the first World Trade Center attacks. His putting everything off
onto the office of the next President was a very strategic move.

Maybe not with terrorists, but he did disarm Iraq. If our present
President had realized this, we could have saved 500 American soldiers and
a couple of hundred billion dollars.

"Henry Blackmoore" wrote in message
hlink.net...
In article , Harry Krause
wrote:

I expect the dirtiest campaign ever from the Repubicans. Bush cannot run
on his record, because his record as president is horrible. He has to go
on the the attack.

Maybe the Bush camp can hire some Demorat experts in the dirty department?
There isn't any shortage of em'. Many would sell out for good money....

....a la Dick Morris.

In article , thunder wrote:

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 19:32:52 +0000, Henry Blackmoore wrote:

Yes, there is something inherently wrong with an older man who takes
advantage of his position of power and authority to exploit a young
female intern who is at the bottom rung of power. Especially when it
is an office as important as the President of the United States.
Sexual exploitation and/or manipulation does not belong in the
workplace.

But you don't get that do you?

I do, it was a despicable act, with a power imbalance more approaching
rape than consensual sex.


And of course Bill Clinton was very effective dealing with terrorists
after the first World Trade Center attacks. His putting everything off
onto the office of the next President was a very strategic move.

Maybe not with terrorists, but he did disarm Iraq. If our present
President had realized this, we could have saved 500 American soldiers and
a couple of hundred billion dollars.

Did Clinton disarm Iraq after Feb 17th 1998 or before??

It doesn't appear that anybody (but you) knew about Clinton disarming Iraq
including other high-ranking Democrats.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the
threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct.
9, 1998

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the
United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat
to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the
United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of
delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter
and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to
use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a
deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave
threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members
... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue
to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will
keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

In article ,
says...

The office of the President is essentially a meaningless figurehead
position. The true minds and influential players are his/her cabinet.
I don't fault Bush directly for his failed policies. Rumsfeld, Rice,
Wolfowitz, Ashcroft etc break down the president to make these
decisions. Bush isn't evil or dangerous...he's just a pompous fool
who's out of touch with the ordinary American.

The fact that Clinton received some sexual favors from Ms. Lewinsky
apparently helped him to perform his job quite well, promoting peace
in the mideast instead of pandering to the religious right so firmly
trying to set the stage for Israel according to their interpretation
of Revelations. I'm ashamed to be of the same congregation as these
freaks.

The very same conservatives I hear spewing that garbage about libs not
getting it are the same individuals who cowardly speak about what
they'd like to do to their female co-worker/subordinate along with
their colleagues during a happy hour conversation, then going home to
their wives...hypocrital mofos.

You help restore my "faith" that Americans are still capable of common
sense.

jps