If an employee does not like the conditions of his or her work environment, he or she should either express grievances with his or her superior(one not involved with the harassment) or find different employment. Just like any other problem with working conditions.
The quote is taken out of context but, being familiar with the philosophy of Dr Paul, I would guess he was making the case for the m****t ( i know its a dirty word around here) discouraging companies from condoning his type of behavior.
current conservative republican economic beliefs are a lot closer to RP’s austrian approach than to what everyone knows is the bus(h)iness as usual approach of mitt, ginger, and perry. and it sounds as if young republicans and independents are responding to his anti-militarism. also, he’s a texan, and the texas born presidents since ike have all been wildly successful, so he’s got a chance…
“fool me once…shame on…shame on you…if fooled, you can’t get fooled again.” W said exactly what i feel about obama and all the rest.
I didn’t find much honest about claims that many people who are planning to vote for Obama won’t acknowledge that Paul says some good things. He does. He also says incredibly bad things. The article claims to be nuanced and yet starts from a position of assuming everyone is too partisan… all except the author, of course.
That “fairly honest” assessment of Ron Paul and Obama that Will posted has one revelatory piece of imagery, though it applies far more to Paul enthusiasts than to Obama supporters.
What the news media and opposition have been doing in recent days is holding up a mirror to Ron Paul - but both he and his devotees are busily ignoring the ugliness that they see.
Misogny, racism, willingness to torpedo decades of progress in environmental protection and public health - all that ugliness can be excused or denied because they find Ron Paul’s isolationism and economic theories appealing.
It doesn’t surprise me that some alleged progressives might be tempted by Ron’s stance against any and all foreign involvements. But they’re forgetting that with Ron, you get the whole package, and it’s not a pretty one.
This is true to the extent that libertarianism can be considered an economic theory. I think many of them really hate the idea of the government “intruding” into anything, and they comfort themselves with the crazy idea that a free market will solve all the problems. Maybe this is a kind of chicken and egg question.
I will admit that I’m very disappointed in Obama, probably not for reasons you would agree with.
But a Paul presidency would be a nightmare – that is assuming he could actually accomplish what he wants to. Which is doubtful, because even most Republican find him kinda scary.
Have you followed this thread at all? How about other Ron Paul threads on this forum?
Lets hear an example. If someone is offended by speech, I don’t think a law should be passed limiting speech in the workplace.
The victim should bring it to the attention of the company. Its obviously not a good business practice. An effectively managed business would not stand for these kind of employee relations. If its not an effectively managed company, maybe high turnover would either drive it out of business, or force it to adopt a different sexual harassment policy.
I believe I addressed the context in which I would find it acceptable. If you don’t agree, you’ll just have to find it “unacceptable” and keep it moving.
Yeah, and I’ve been here a lot longer than you have.
Watch this!
I agree with Ron Paul about a few things. I think our foreign policy is way too militaristic and there is no way we should be deliberately targeting Americans without a trial. I also believe the War on Drugs is a dangerous and foolhardy thing that leads to incredibly perverse and racist outcomes, and that the number of Americans currently incarcerated is a complete disgrace.
I disagree with Ron Paul about a whole host of other things, from abortion rights to universal health care to taxes to civil rights to whether 95% of the black men in DC are criminals and incredibly fleet of foot. I don’t think AIDS sufferers should get no help and I don’t think the indigent should receive no medical care aside from charity. I don’t think we all need gun to protect us from car jackers, nor do we need to make sure our guns were bought via the classifieds so that they can’t be traced to us if we shoot “youths.” I don’t think GW Bush let 911 happen for his own ends, I believe in vaccination, I think a return to the gold standard is an absolutely idiotic thing to work toward, and I don’t celebrate “Hate Whitey Day.”
And, unlike Ron Paul, I don’t think every candidate up on the stage during the last debate could beat Barack Obama. And he’s one of the losers who can’t.
If Susan finds this invitation to be offensive, she is unhappy with her working conditions and should express her dissatisfaction with the proper people in her company. If the conditions do not improve, she can either find work in more hospitable conditions, or put up with these types of invitations.
I don’t think any of the candidates can beat Obama. He is going to have an opponent though. I, for one, would like that opponent to be able to challenge the president on the issues I find important.
And that’s fine. Ideal even. But don’t convince yourself that it means that people who are planning on voting for Obama are blind to hi flaws or to the good things that Ron Paul says just because they don’t consider the good things Paul says as important as the bad things (or as important as you do). That’s the mistake in the article you linked to.
I mean, I read a couple of days ago that David Duke is against the War on Drugs. David Duke agrees with me on something! I agree with David Duke on something! I can admit that we agree on something without having any desire whatsoever to vote for David Duke. (It does give me the desire to take a shower, though.)
Ron Paul isn’t as loathsome as David Duke and I agree with him on more, but just agreeing on a handful of items doesn’t make someone’s ideology acceptable. Sure, Paul is better than Duke (and Bachmann and Perry and Santorum), but that doesn’t mean he’s someone I would ever vote for because I find the majority of his espoused ideas despicable.
He’s never going to accomplish what he wants to, that’s why he’d make a good President. He is fighting specifically against what he considers the illegal seizure of powers by the federal government. This means that the politicians that want to retain those powers will fight against him, and it means that Ron Paul is not going to empower them by illegally seizing the power that would be necessary to force his worst ideas through.
It comes down to this: Ron Paul is the only running candidate I’m aware of who is against the US government kidnapping and murdering brown people without even bothering to justify the act with a trial, and he’s got the balls to call them out on it. I’d love it if there was another candidate like that who didn’t have Paul’s baggage, but there isn’t.
But you took Ron Paul political positions from newsletters that were debunked already? And then pile on some more.
I guess then you ascribe Jeremiah Wright’s sermons to Obama? Probably not, eh? You’re probably a bit smarter than that.
This discussion has become pretty ridiculous.
I hope Obama loses ONLY because he is supported by people like this and that people like this will turn independents to approach elections as “vote Obama out”.
Debunked? No. He either wrote them or had them ghost-written and either way they are his.
And the majority of what I commented on wasn’t from the newsletters in any case. Repeal of Roe v. Wade, return to gold standard, only charity for the indigent, no mandatory vaccination, 911 trutherism, etc. Couple that with his obvious and blatant lies about the newsletters and you’ve got a little twerp of a man who should be mocked and utterly rejected.
And he’s STILL better than half of the Republican field.