Ron Paul thinks victims of sexual harrassment are to blame.

[PredFan]

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?

No, but they don't have to put up with it and they don't need the government to stand up for them.

 

[PredFan]

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.

But that's how government works. They cannot be an impartial observer and protector of rights for long before they reach in with both hands and strangle everyone.

Ron Paul is correct.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

And if the harrasser holds high office within the company?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.



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.

**** Ron Paul.

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

The show, Fox News Sunday, will air again later today. I'm sure it will also be available later on the net.

And I don't consider my conclusion a huge leap. I could be wrong of course but I don't believe I am. All we have when we consider who to support are their words which we have to make personal opinions on. Nothing in politics is clear cut black and white.

Yeah, the **** Paul comment was made out of frustration. It was a bit over the top.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Nonsense.

What criteria are used to determine a ‘valued employee,’ will the criteria be consistent from employer to employer? What of a new employee who hasn’t established his ‘value’ yet?

Laws are clearly needed, as well as the right to seek relief in civil court. This is one of many examples where ‘economic law’ is too weak or non-existent to address this and other issues.

 

[imbalance]

Why did you move this to conspirators section?

It's not a ******* conspiracy. It's his own words in his book.

I'm expecting your "ZOMG RON PAUL IS A ******* REPTILITAN SHAPE-SHIFTER!!!" thread any day now.

lol u mad

 

[Zoom]

Ron Paul is as crazy as Newt, Perry and especially Romney.

Remember Bachmann saying how a woman should obey men or something to that affect. Wow the GOP have a wonderful bunch to choose from.

Mr. Obama will be in until 2016 and by then, (judging on how things are going so far) a dem will probably win then as well.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The only thing worse than an Obama presidency imo would be a Paul presidency. As such I will post accordingly.

Paul despite his good positions has many detrimental ones. While Pauls ideas may be good for the free market they would be disastrous for our society in general. I believe lawsuits and crime would increase exponentially were many of his ideas followed through on.

As many are passionate about who they like I am just as passionate about what I believe would be a step backwards.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ron Paul is as crazy as Newt, Perry and especially Romney.

Remember Bachmann saying how a woman should obey men or something to that affect. Wow the GOP have a wonderful bunch to choose from.

Mr. Obama will be in until 2016 and by then, (judging on how things are going so far) a dem will probably win then as well.

That goes in teh same category as Sarah Palin saying she can see Russia from her front porch.
Bachmann made no such statement.
Obama is toast. The GOP base will mobilize against him and turn out in droves, regardless of the nominee.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Paul despite his good positions has many detrimental ones. While Pauls ideas may be good for the free market they would be disastrous for our society in general. I believe lawsuits and crime would increase exponentially were many of his ideas followed through on.

The greatest threat posed by a ‘Paul Administration’ would be judicial appointments, where he’d appoint radical rightist reactionaries to the courts jeopardizing our civil liberties. The damage done could be comprehensive, disastrous, and irreparable.

 

[The Rabbi]

Paul despite his good positions has many detrimental ones. While Pauls ideas may be good for the free market they would be disastrous for our society in general. I believe lawsuits and crime would increase exponentially were many of his ideas followed through on.

The greatest threat posed by a ‘Paul Administration’ would be judicial appointments, where he’d appoint radical rightist reactionaries to the courts jeopardizing our civil liberties. The damage done could be comprehensive, disastrous, and irreparable.

Of all the criticisms of Paul that's the dumbest. Paul is a nut about civil liberties, seeing them even where they dont exist.

 

[Zoom]

The only thing worse than an Obama presidency imo would be a Paul presidency. As such I will post accordingly.

Paul despite his good positions has many detrimental ones. While Pauls ideas may be good for the free market they would be disastrous for our society in general. I believe lawsuits and crime would increase exponentially were many of his ideas followed through on.

As many are passionate about who they like I am just as passionate about what I believe would be a step backwards.

Would you be so kind as to list who in the GOP would make a good president please. Thanks.

 

[jillian]

Quote "Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser can not be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem?"
Freedom Under Siege 1987, Ron Paul


He says there should not be any federal laws to protect people from such behavior.You need a link.

randian idiots are idiots....

no surprises...

 

[Zoom]

Ron Paul is as crazy as Newt, Perry and especially Romney.

Remember Bachmann saying how a woman should obey men or something to that affect. Wow the GOP have a wonderful bunch to choose from.

Mr. Obama will be in until 2016 and by then, (judging on how things are going so far) a dem will probably win then as well.

That goes in teh same category as Sarah Palin saying she can see Russia from her front porch.
Bachmann made no such statement.
Obama is toast. The GOP base will mobilize against him and turn out in droves, regardless of the nominee.

So she didnt say she was submissive to her husband? Do you honestly need a link? Really? You do know, Romney is going to win. You honestly think, seriously think REPUBLICANS are going to back a Mormon? "in droves". If you are betting on this, then I would hate to watch you in Vegas. It would be like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Republicans are going to support Newt if he somehow won? Bachmann? Perry? Ron Paul? By the way, Ron Paul IS NOT LIKED by Fox. There is no way in hell he will ever win the republican nomination. No way possible since Fox does not like him. They will rally behind him "in droves" if he wins?

Good luck in 2012.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ron Paul is as crazy as Newt, Perry and especially Romney.

Remember Bachmann saying how a woman should obey men or something to that affect. Wow the GOP have a wonderful bunch to choose from.

Mr. Obama will be in until 2016 and by then, (judging on how things are going so far) a dem will probably win then as well.

That goes in teh same category as Sarah Palin saying she can see Russia from her front porch.
Bachmann made no such statement.
Obama is toast. The GOP base will mobilize against him and turn out in droves, regardless of the nominee.

So she didnt say she was submissive to her husband? Do you honestly need a link? Really? You do know, Romney is going to win. You honestly think, seriously think REPUBLICANS are going to back a Mormon? "in droves". If you are betting on this, then I would hate to watch you in Vegas. It would be like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Republicans are going to support Newt if he somehow won? Bachmann? Perry? Ron Paul? By the way, Ron Paul IS NOT LIKED by Fox. There is no way in hell he will ever win the republican nomination. No way possible since Fox does not like him. They will rally behind him "in droves" if he wins?

Good luck in 2012.

Translation: I have no proof at all and I am merely spewing bullshit.
Thanks for that.

 

[PredFan]

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.

Nonsense.

What criteria are used to determine a ‘valued employee,’ will the criteria be consistent from employer to employer? What of a new employee who hasn’t established his ‘value’ yet?

The only criteria necessary is the belief by the company that the employee is vaulable.

Laws are clearly needed, as well as the right to seek relief in civil court. This is one of many examples where ‘economic law’ is too weak or non-existent to address this and other issues.

And there are laws, what's the problem?

 

[PredFan]

The only thing worse than an Obama presidency imo would be a Paul presidency. As such I will post accordingly.

Paul despite his good positions has many detrimental ones. While Pauls ideas may be good for the free market they would be disastrous for our society in general. I believe lawsuits and crime would increase exponentially were many of his ideas followed through on.

As many are passionate about who they like I am just as passionate about what I believe would be a step backwards.

Remember this, the President isn't Caesar. He cannot do whatever he wants to. Just like Obama couldn't close Gitmo, or end the wars, or sit down with tyrants and have a little chat, Ron Paul won't be able to do anything as radical as it seems he wants to. What he will be able to do is the things that he and the GOP agree on, and that would actually be a good thing for the country.

 

[PredFan]

Paul despite his good positions has many detrimental ones. While Pauls ideas may be good for the free market they would be disastrous for our society in general. I believe lawsuits and crime would increase exponentially were many of his ideas followed through on.

The greatest threat posed by a ‘Paul Administration’ would be judicial appointments, where he’d appoint radical rightist reactionaries to the courts jeopardizing our civil liberties. The damage done could be comprehensive, disastrous, and irreparable.

Damn, you know absolutely nothing about Ron Paul.

 

[PredFan]

Ron Paul is as crazy as Newt, Perry and especially Romney.

Remember Bachmann saying how a woman should obey men or something to that affect. Wow the GOP have a wonderful bunch to choose from.

Mr. Obama will be in until 2016 and by then, (judging on how things are going so far) a dem will probably win then as well.

That goes in teh same category as Sarah Palin saying she can see Russia from her front porch.
Bachmann made no such statement.
Obama is toast. The GOP base will mobilize against him and turn out in droves, regardless of the nominee.

So she didnt say she was submissive to her husband? Do you honestly need a link? Really? You do know, Romney is going to win. You honestly think, seriously think REPUBLICANS are going to back a Mormon? "in droves". If you are betting on this, then I would hate to watch you in Vegas. It would be like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Republicans are going to support Newt if he somehow won? Bachmann? Perry? Ron Paul? By the way, Ron Paul IS NOT LIKED by Fox. There is no way in hell he will ever win the republican nomination. No way possible since Fox does not like him. They will rally behind him "in droves" if he wins?

Good luck in 2012.

There is a distinct aroma of desperation in your posts. Methinks you protest too much.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The only criteria necessary is the belief by the company that the employee is vaulable.

And how is that ‘criteria’ applicable in a court of law? It’s subjective opinion, inconsistent, and inadmissible. It’s also irrelevant as to sexual harassment, the law applies to everyone equally regardless of ‘value.’

And there are laws, what's the problem?

Your advocacy the laws be done away with, and victims not be allowed to file suit.