Stoid, I’m a little confused. I’ll admit that my grasp on the concepts of economics is pretty basic, but… as Sam Stone touched upon, how on earth would having a bigger supply of oil avalible make George W. wealthier? More supply would decrease the cost, so he should be losing money on the deal. Wouldn’t the best way (until fed. reserves started to run out,) to increase his wealth be to do the exact oposite and sever all ties to imported oil sources? Decreasing the supply would make prices on oil already in the US sky-rocket, and if the price increases over the past two years have shown us anything, people will grumble, but they’ll pay whatever the oil companies want for gas. I suppose over the long term George would have to worry about not having enough gas to use to screw consumers out of their money for, (or else tap into the Alaska oil fields) but that sort of situation might not occur before the next election.
Hey Elucidator,
So it’s OK for the boss to have sex with comely young interns? That’s not sexual harassment? I’m afraid many of your liberal friends would quite disagree. I mean, heck, looking cross-eyed at a member of the opposite sex is harassment in some people’s minds. Or is it only bad if Bob Packwood or Clarence Thomas does it, but OK if Bill Clinton or Gary Condit does it? Just wondering.
Depends on whether we are talking about next month, next year, or next decade. Ya can’t sell what doesn’t exist.
And again, there’s several possible ways that GWB could find this war convenient (above and beyond the instant cred it has conferred upon him), and when it comes to oil, as I have repeatedly stated, it may not be about Dubya directly, but what he owes to his supporters.
stoid
I’m pretty damn liberal (duh!) and it doesn’t mean sexual harassment to me. Unlike my more stringent feminist (what’s the feminine of * brethren * , anyway?) sisters, I don’t think that any relationship between superior and subordinate = sexual harassment. In fact, I think that’s perfect ridiculous and devalues the meaning of real sexual harassment, which at minimum should include ** somebody ** who is actually involved finding whatever is going on unwelcome. Hardly the case with Monica and Bill.
In the same way that conservatives don’t like to be expected to defend Jerry Falwell, liberals don’t like to be expected to defend Andrea Dworkin.
stoid
No, consentual sex between two adults is NOT sexual harassment. Unprofessional, perhaps-if said adults work together, but no, not sexual harassment. Not even close.
:rolleyes:
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Guinastasia *
**
Guin, IIRC under the standards applying to the federal government, even consenual sex between superior and subordinate may well constitute sexual harassment.
http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/text/291604.txt
There is a reasonable presumption that the underlined section would apply when Monica L. was offered a mid-level position in the United Nations. I don’t believe the reason was her vast foreign policy experience. (Insert ribald joke of choice here.)
december, your disingenuousness is becoming pervasive. And irritating as hell.
In the very definition you provide, you cut the legs out from under your argument, and prop up mine! Note the qualifying word “** unwelcome” ** , which defines all instances of the words “such conduct”.
All the sexual activity between Bill and Monica was 100% welcome.
I’d say “nice try”, but in fact it was a seriously lame try.
stoid
Stoid, please read the entire clause. It says, “Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature…” IANAL but I think the relationship between Bill and Monica is covered under, “requests for sexual favors,” and I’m fairly certain that it’s described by the words, “other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.”
Any lawyers here are invited to chime in.
Stoid, please read the entire clause. It says, “Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature…” **
[/QUOTE]
“Unwelcome” modifies every part, as you well know. Otherwise, bosses who marry their secretaries could be busted for sexual harassment.
stoid
You guys! Milroyj throws me a lob that my grandmother could knock out of the park, and before I can get to it you guys have torn it up and blown it away! Jeeez! I even had a great cigar joke for a finish…
Oh well. Maybe Shodan will bring up the “trashing of the White House” again.
You guys! Milroyj throws me a lob that my grandmother could knock out of the park, and before I can get to it you guys have torn it up and blown it away! Jeeez! I even had a great cigar joke for a finish…
Oh well. Maybe Shodan will bring up the “trashing of the White House” again.
Oh, Milroyj as to my “liberal friends”. They’re both radicals.
december, for what it’s worth, she went after him.
Look, I’m not saying it was a good thing-stupid and very very very unprofessional. Very bad idea. But it was not sexual HARRASSMENT!!! AAAAAHHHHHH!!!
Jesus Christ in a tree!
All the places I’ve ever worked, sex between a boss and employee absolutely WOULD be considered sexual harassment. It’s painfully obvious, at least to me, that attempting to draw a distinction between “I felt pressured to have sex with him” and “I did not feel pressured to have sex with him” isn’t a distinction Mr. Hornypants is in a position to effectively make. “She wanted it” is an old and stupid excuse. If it isn’t that way in your workplace, you might want to let the company legal counsel know they’re two inches away from losing a back-breaking lawsuit.
Ack! I’d hate to work where you do!
There’s a chasm of difference between “She wanted it” and “I wanted it”.
stoid
Stoid, your point makes sense. The wording itself appears less than fully clear. The law could have been more clear by repeating the word “unwelcome” three times. FAIK a court might use this reasoning to decide that the word “unwelcome” modifies only the first clause. I’d welcome anopinion from the legal eagles on this panel.
I suppose the words, “As you well know,” is one of those phrases people use in place of evidence. Like, “It’s obvious that…”, “Even a freshman would know that…”, or, “Everybody knows that…”, etc.
So since we are not in the midst of an all-out nuclear exchange, Stoid wants to get on with the usual hysterical anti-Bush rantings.
Color me shocked.
Geez, Stoid, do we need a score card here? Five thousand dead in the US, God only knows how many in Afghanistan, and you want to go on with “How do we know that the former room mate of Bush’s best friend from high school might not make money off some investments that could have happened without anyone knowing about it?” Sheesh.
Hi, elucidator! Always nice to hear from you.
Just to clarify - when I mentioned ‘sexual harassment’ by Clinton, I meant Paula Jones, Juanita Broaderrick, and Kathleen Willey. Those are the ones he sexually harassed. Monica is the one who led him to commit perjury and witness tampering. Just to help you keep them straight.
Perhaps in return, you could clear something up for me. What exactly is it about Paula Jones that makes it OK for the boss of her boss to proposition her? Is it the accent? Was it the nose? What in particular makes her so much less than human, so that we can all dismiss her as just another white-trash slut who ought to be grateful that someone as wonderful as Bill Clinton would deign to allow her to fellate him?
If he chose to spit on her, what kind of a thank-you note would you say he deserved?
Any thoughts on the matter? Or is it just axiomatic that People Like Us - you know, the ones with Elevated and Correct Thoughts - have no need to concern themselves with their inferiors?
Good to know that all that unpleasantness about vandalism in the White House never really happened. Isn’t it odd, however, that Time magazine seems to think that it did? http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0%2C8599%2C96984%2C00.html
Probably all a mistake, huh? We all know what a bastion of right-wing sentiment that rag is.
Have a lovely day.
Regards,
Shodan
And of course, some of us believe Paula Jones was LYING.
The horror!
:rolleyes:
“…Paula Jones was lying”
You know, I’m not too crazy about P. Jones, but I must say, Bill Clinton must have more women lying about alleged affairs than any other politician on record. (With other politicians, it’s clear that the allegations were true). Gary Condit may be a close second.
All in all, it makes absulutely no difference to me who, how or why they screw around, and as far as I’m concerned, if it actually helps them do their jobs, go for it! As long as it helps, and not hinders the job. If Clinton was willing to lie about his affair, was he also open to blackmail? Was he willing to maybe do sime favors for people to keep it quiet? I don’t remember any evidence of such things (except maybe Monica’s new job after the white house), but it seems reasonable to have the concerns. So if he is just getting a little on the side, that’s between him and his wife; but if he is getting Little Willie polished while Yasser Arafat waits for him, that could be a bad thing…
Why?
Because Clinton is a Democrat, silly.