Ron Paul thinks victims of sexual harrassment are to blame.

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Do you want more of the same or change? I'm sure they would have passed if they were crappy bills that screwed all of us.

Electing Paul would be more of the same.....ineffective leadership.

I haven't heard any of the elected politicians talking about ending the Feds(private bank) control of the American economy, ending foreign welfare, stopping the fiat money system and a whole list of other issuses.

Because they know they have to work within the confines of the legislative process. Paul thinks apparently that congress is just going to rubberstamp his agenda.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I'm going to assume the mod that moved this is a Paul supporter. No other explanation for moving this into conspiracy theories.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I'm going to assume the mod that moved this is a Paul supporter. No other explanation for moving this into conspiracy theories.

No of course not.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I'm going to assume the mod that moved this is a Paul supporter. No other explanation for moving this into conspiracy theories.

No of course not.

He said it needed a link. I recreated the thread with a link and he/she moved it here anyway.

Nonsense.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Republicans are always against women's rights.

Wrong

Well, since Rabbi thanked you for this stupid remark I'll remind both of you that the GOP opposed the Equal Rights Amendment.

Do either of you hacks have any evidence to support your contentions? Or is this more smoke out of the asses of trolls?

 

[Truthseeker420]

I actually have to hand this one to Paul. Don't like where you work? Quit.

So you think women should have to put up with sexual harrassment to keep their jobs?

 

[JoeB131]

I actually have to hand this one to Paul. Don't like where you work? Quit.

So you think women should have to put up with sexual harrassment to keep their jobs?

You want to play lumberjack, you'd better learn to hold up your end of the log.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Republicans are always against women's rights.

Wrong

Well, since Rabbi thanked you for this stupid remark I'll remind both of you that the GOP opposed the Equal Rights Amendment.

Do either of you hacks have any evidence to support your contentions? Or is this more smoke out of the asses of trolls?

The person quoting HIMSELF in his own sig is saying what?

Sit down clown.

 

[WatertheTree]

According to the Washington Post Paul has accomplished the following:

Submitted 620 proposals

Of those only 4 made it to debate

And only one of those made it into law, HR 2121 in 2009
And that law was to sell a house to a historical society.

1 out of 620 and he wants us to believe he can lead? This proves that his presidency, were he to somehow win, would be a lame duck. The man is ineffective.

Thats great, who else do you suggest?

All others are socialists. They either think the government exists to steal from some and give to others. The poor would not be so hard to help if we didnt have the rich plundering the prosperity of the nation.

 

[The Rabbi]

I actually have to hand this one to Paul. Don't like where you work? Quit.

So you think women should have to put up with sexual harrassment to keep their jobs?

It's a choice. They can either deal with it like adults or quit.

Wbat is "harassment"? Someone puts up a pin up poster and suddenly that's harassment?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Liberals cant take care of themselves so they need big brother to monitor, manage, and control everyone else.

The marketplace will take care of the sexual harassment. No firm is going to tolerate it, they are not going to 'welcome sexual harassment'. They are however going to be able to drop the insurance they have against being sued for that sort of thing.

Its called overhead, redtape. It protects big business and sends small to bankruptcy.

I actually have to hand this one to Paul. Don't like where you work? Quit.

This is a really stupid area of law, and franly, we'd all be better off if it were gotten off the federal books.

Yet more examples of conservative ignorance:

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations, as well as to the federal government.

Facts About Sexual Harassment

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was upheld as Constitutional by the Supreme Court in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964).

It’s typical of rightist ignorance and reactionaryism to wish to repeal the Civil Rights Act and ignore the Constitutional case law that authorizes it.

Just as no Americans should be subject to discrimination because of race or gender in the workplace, so too should no American be compelled to flee his place of employment, due to no fault of his own, as a result of sexual harassment.

 

[The Rabbi]

And yet employers should be subjected to lawsuits and threats of lawsuits from the merely incompetent and disgruntled.
The Dems are all about protecting and promoting incompetence. They even made it to the top spot.

 

[Katzndogz]

If laws prohibiting sexual harassment had stayed with sexual harassment it wouldn't be an issue. When the laws moved from objective harassment, direct statements, physical manifestations to subjective harassment, a "look", or hostile work environment that's where the laws started being meaningless.

The supervisor demands sex from a female subordinate or she'll be fired. That's sexual harassment. A co-worker squeezes a breast. That's sexual harassment.

A woman finds out that a co-worker has a photo of a naked Lady Gaga taped to the inside of his locker is NOT sexual harassment. A couple making a date for later after work is NOT sexual harassment to an evesdropper.

I recall a specific instance from some years ago, a nurse at San Pedro Peninsula hospital reported a surgeon for creating a hostile work environment because she saw him kissing his wife goodbye in the parking lot when he was dropped off at work. She got a few thou out of that one.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

And yet employers should be subjected to lawsuits and threats of lawsuits from the merely incompetent and disgruntled.
The Dems are all about protecting and promoting incompetence. They even made it to the top spot.

I get your point but there is a line between flirting or demanding sexual favor for work. And there should be protection from the latter.

 

[Truthseeker420]

I actually have to hand this one to Paul. Don't like where you work? Quit.

So you think women should have to put up with sexual harrassment to keep their jobs?

It's a choice. They can either deal with it like adults or quit.

Wbat is "harassment"? Someone puts up a pin up poster and suddenly that's harassment?

I would agree that the sexual harrasment laws might be too restrictive. But it seems very callous to suggest that a women should put up with real sexual harrasment or quit her job.

 

[Jroc]

Republicans are always against women's rights.

Wrong

Well, since Rabbi thanked you for this stupid remark I'll remind both of you that the GOP opposed the Equal Rights Amendment.

Do either of you hacks have any evidence to support your contentions? Or is this more smoke out of the asses of trolls?

The Debates About ERAThe Equal Rights Amendment was presented to the American public as something that would benefit women, "put women in the U.S. Constitution," and lift women out of their so-called "second-class citizenship." However, in thousands of debates, the ERA advocates were unable to show any way that ERA would benefit women or end any discrimination against them. The fact is that women already enjoy every constitutional right that men enjoy and have enjoyed equal employment opportunity since 1964.

In the short term, clever advertising and packaging can sell a worthless product; but, in the long term, the American people cannot be fooled. ERA's biggest defect was that it had nothing to offer American women.

The opponents of ERA, on the other hand, were able to show many harms that ERA would cause.


1.ERA would take away legal rights that women possessed - not confer any new rights on women.

A.ERA would take away women's traditional exemption from military conscription and also from military combat duty. The classic "sex discriminatory" laws are those which say that "male citizens of age 18" must register for the draft and those which exempt women from military combat assignment. The ERAers tried to get around this argument by asking the Supreme Court to hold that the 14th Amendment already requires women to be drafted, but they lost in 1981 in Rostker v. Goldberg when the Supreme Court upheld the traditional exemption of women from the draft under our present Constitution.

B.ERA would take away the traditional benefits in the law for wives, widows and mothers. ERA would make unconstitutional the laws, which then existed in every state, that impose on a husband the obligation to support his wife.

2.ERA would take away important rights and powers of the states and confer these on other branches of government which are farther removed from the people.

A.ERA would give enormous power to the Federal courts to decide the definitions of the words in ERA, "sex" and "equality of rights." It is irresponsible to leave it to the courts to decide such sensitive, emotional and important issues as whether or not the language applies to abortion or homosexual rights.

3.Section II of ERA would give enormous new powers to the Federal Government that now belong to the states. ERA would give Congress the power to legislate on all those areas of law which include traditional differences of treatment on account of sex: marriage, property laws, divorce and alimony, child custody, adoptions, abortion, homosexual laws, sex crimes, private and public schools, prison regulations, and insurance. ERA would thus result in the massive redistribution of powers in our Federal system.

4.ERA's impact on education would take away rights from women students, upset many customs and practices, and bring government intrusion into private schools.

A.ERA would force all schools and colleges, and all the programs and athletics they conduct, to be fully coeducational and sex-integrated. ERA would make unconstitutional all the current exceptions in Title IX which allow for single- sex schools and colleges and for separate treatment of the sexes for certain activities. ERA would mean the end of single-sex colleges. ERA would force the sex integration of fraternities, sororities, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, YMCA, YWCA, Boys State and Girls State conducted by the American Legion, and mother-daughter and father-son school events.

B.ERA would risk the income tax exemption of all private schools and colleges that make any difference of treatment between males and females, even though no public monies are involved. ERA is a statement of public policy that would apply the same rules to sex that we now observe on race, and it is clear that no school that makes any racial distinctions may enjoy tax exemption.

5.ERA would put abortion rights into the U.S. Constitution, and make abortion funding a new constitutional right. Roe v. Wade in 1973 legalized abortion, but the fight to make abortion funding a constitutional right was lost in Harris v. McRae in 1980. The abortionists then looked to ERA to force taxpayer funding. The American Civil Liberties Union filed briefs in abortion cases in Hawaii, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Connecticut arguing that, since abortion is a medical procedure performed only on women, it is "sex discrimination" within the meaning of the state's ERA to deny tax funding for abortions. In the most recent decision, the Connecticut Superior Court ruled on April 19, 1986 that the state ERA requires abortion funding. Those who oppose tax funding of abortions demand that ERA be amended to prevent this effect, but ERA advocates want ERA only so long as it includes abortion funding.

6.ERA would put "gay rights" into the U.S. Constitution, because the word in the Amendment is "sex" not women. Eminent authorities have stated that ERA would legalize the granting of marriage licenses to homosexuals and generally implement the "gay rights" and lesbian agenda. These authorities include the Yale Law Journal, the leading textbook on sex discrimination used in U.S. law schools, Harvard Law Professor Paul Freund, and Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. Other lawyers have disputed this effect, but no one can guarantee that the courts would not define the word "sex" to include "orientation" just as they have defined "sex" 'to include pregnancy.

7.In the final years of the ERA battle, two new arguments appeared. Both were advanced by the ERA advocates, but they quickly became arguments in the hands of the ERA opponents.

A.ERA would require "unisex insurance," that is, would prohibit insurance companies from charging lower rates for women, even though actuarial data clearly show that women, as a group, are entitled to lower rates both for automobile accident insurance and life insurance. This is because women drivers have fewer accidents and women live longer than men. Most people found it a peculiar argument that "women's rights" should include the "right" to pay higher insurance rates.

B.ERA would eliminate veterans' preference. This rests on the same type of legal argument as the abortion funding argument: since most veterans are men, it is claimed that it is "sex discriminatory" to give them benefits. Naturally, this argument was not acceptable to the veterans, and their national organizations lobbied hard against ERA.

A Short History of E.R.A. -- September 1986 Phyllis Schlafly Report

 

[The Rabbi]

So you think women should have to put up with sexual harrassment to keep their jobs?

It's a choice. They can either deal with it like adults or quit.

Wbat is "harassment"? Someone puts up a pin up poster and suddenly that's harassment?

I would agree that the sexual harrasment laws might be too restrictive. But it seems very callous to suggest that a women should put up with real sexual harrasment or quit her job.

If she is a valued employee then the employer has a vested interest in retaining her, and dealing with the issue. No laws needed except the law of economics.

 

[PredFan]

1987? Really?

You do remember that in the 1980s and 90s there were a rash of "harassment" suits litigated simply because most companies would rather pay cash to the "victim" rather than fight the accusation right?

Oh wait, many of you weren't even born before 1987.

Please, can we concentrate on what is relevant to today?

I was born in the 60's son.

I was born in the 50s so I'm older than you SON. And I was addressing everyone who criticise RP on this not just you.

And the issue is completely relevant as Paul was questioned about it today on the Sunday shows and he stands behind the position.

Was he? Context is everything, got a link?

To me it speaks volumes about his character. Women are clearly subservient to Paul.

That's a huge leap, especially considering that men also filed sexual harassment suits in those days as well.

Fuck Ron Paul.

Guy, I usually agree with you and I know you're better than this.

 

[PredFan]

I'm going to assume the mod that moved this is a Paul supporter. No other explanation for moving this into conspiracy theories.

I wouldn't worry too much about where it is, it'll still be a hot thread.

 

[PredFan]

Republicans are always against women's rights.

Wrong

Well, since Rabbi thanked you for this stupid remark I'll remind both of you that the GOP opposed the Equal Rights Amendment.

Do either of you hacks have any evidence to support your contentions? Or is this more smoke out of the asses of trolls?

Why should we defend the obvious against the completely idiotic statement that the GOP is against women's rights, and the equally moronic belief that the ERA was the only way women could have equal rights?

We were against the ERA because it was a utterly rediculous and useless bill that allowed more intrusion of big government into our lives. It didn't pass and women still have equal rights.

Dumbass.