Ron Paul Ups The Ante And Claims Sexual Harassment Shouldn’t Be Illegal
On Fox News Sunday Ron Paul upped the ante on his opposition to sexual harassment laws by claiming that there should be no federal laws against sexual harassment.
Here is the video:
WALLACE: Let me just interrupt, I’m sorry but we have limited time and we want to get to the other two candidates as well. I want to ask you about one other thing that you wrote back in your book in 1987 about sexual harassment in the workplace.
You wrote this, “Why don’t” — this is about the victims of sexual harassment. “Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously, the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem?”
You said that sexual harassment should not be a violation of someone’s employment rights?
PAUL: Well, the whole thing is, is you have to get a better definition of sexual harassment. If it’s just because somebody told the joke and somebody was offended, they don’t have a right to go to the federal government and have a policeman to come in and put penalties on those individuals. I mean, they have to say, well, maybe this is not a very good environment, and they have the right to work there or not there.
But if sexual harassment involves violence as libertarians, we are very opposed to any violence. So, if there is any violence involved, you still don’t need a federal law against harassment. You just need to call the policeman and say there’s been an assault or there’s been attempted rape or something.
So, you have to separate those two out. But because people are insulted by, you know, rude behavior, I don’t think we should make a federal case out of it. I don’t think we need federal laws to deal with that and people should deal with that at home.
Paul has held these views on sexual harassment laws for decades, but it wasn’t until he went from a fringe player to top tier Iowa candidate that anyone bothered to do even the most basic vetting of this candidate.
What Ron Paul was saying here is that there should not be any federal laws against sexual harassment. There should not be any civil rights protections for women and some men in the workplace. In other words, sexual harassment should be legal. Rep. Paul’s statements today reflect his ideology taken to its logical conclusions. I have praised Ron Paul in the Republican debates for his consistency, but we should not mistake consistency for a rigid ideological inflexibility that promotes a decision making process where details and circumstances don’t matter. In the mind of Ron Paul, the ideology must be adhered to at all times.
There should be no federal laws against sexual harassment. This is what voters are getting if they vote for Ron Paul. Rep. Paul has been moving up in Iowa, because this extremist message appeals to the very very conservative caucus goers. Democrats who are tempted to support Paul need to realize that no matter how tempting his foreign policy is, Ron Paul makes George W. Bush look like an enlightened an open minded thinker.
In a year when many in the Republican base are desperately searching for an extremist candidate, Ron Paul represents a kind of ideological purity and simplicity that for them is as addictive as crack.
Paul’s position on sexual harassment in the work place could also extend to other forms of discrimination. If Paul doesn’t believe in sexual harassment laws, then he probably doesn’t believe in the other civil rights laws that prevent discrimination based on race, color, age, sex, creed, and disability. Ron Paul believes the market should be left alone at all times, and this includes allowing employers to freely discriminate.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for sexual harassment. Something tells me this isn’t the kind of bumper sticker that the Republican Party wants to see.
Jason is the managing editor. He is also a White House Press Pool and a Congressional correspondent for PoliticusUSA. Jason has a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science. His graduate work focused on public policy, with a specialization in social reform movements.
Awards and Professional Memberships
Member of the Society of Professional Journalists and The American Political Science Association
199 Replies to “Ron Paul Ups The Ante And Claims Sexual Harassment Shouldn’t Be Illegal”
Well, of course, he thinks that. He has a son, not a daughter. Acqua Bhudda, Acqua Bhudda, Acqua Bhudda…
Old man Paul thinks sexual harassment is about “insults”??…bless his little old cooter heart…
I guess personal intimidation by a superior so you can’t preform your job, quid pro quo (as in sex for promotion), retaliation by a superior for non-work related issues doesn’t ring a bell for him…just goes to shows how out of touch a 70-something white male can be in terms of work place reality let alone information that “the little worker bees” are educated upon, on a yearly bases by their HR department. He has no idea what he’s talking about…shut up, Grandpa!
Mmmmm, yeah, “just leave.” Watch how quickly that business becomes an infamous haven for sexual predators.
Oh, yeah, that’s right. Wave the Liberty Wand™, the magic of the almighty Free Market will put that business out of business. What are you gonna say when it doesn’t? What are you gonna say when they rise to the top, as sociopaths do on an ever-increasing frequency?
Ron Paul does not think sexual harassment should be legal. There are state laws against it and that is efficient.
“Why don’t they quit?” You know, that is the typical ignorant response of a right winger. No actual thought applied, just pick the most assholish, superficial one-liner and pretend that it’s “a point of view”.
Yes Ron, WHY don’t they just quit? Golly, you really can’t think of a single reason? Well, maybe THEY NEED THE MONEY TO FEED THEIR KIDS? Or, I dunno, maybe if they quit they can’t get unemployment benefits? Or maybe they’d lose their health insurance? Or maybe the right wingers have jacked up the economy so bad, they can’t get a different job?
Just pulled those answers right off the top of my head, Ron. I’m sure if I THOUGHT about it for five more minutes, I could come up with more. Sad that someone who thinks they should be president lacks even as much imagination as I have.
But just for fun, let’s say we HAD your magical Libertarian “paradise” where harassers are free to do as they please and people will just choose not to work there. Well, as we saw in the old days of workers as barely paid slaves (i.e. the Libertarian golden age of Real America), some people find themselves in circumstances where they have no choice but to take a job no matter how horrible the demands or conditions.
So, in typical Libertarian form, those people apparently DESERVE to suffer, rather than making some sort of enforceable standards to protect EVERYONE’S rights.
The thing that makes me think Libertarians are just clinically retarded, is the overarching idea that somehow things would be better than they are now with LESS regulations and enforcement. As if, the only thing causing the badness in this country ARE the regulations, and if they were just lifted, bad people would be so happy that they’d turn good. Or that somehow, “the market would correct itself”, even though there’s no logic that supports the idea since it doesn’t even happen NOW. I mean, please explain to me, if the government hadn’t forced Mountain Bell to split up and remove it’s monopolistic tentacles from around our necks, how would the communications market have “corrected itself”?
Once again, this politician demonstrates how far back (in time and progress) he wants to take our country.
Exactly! Right wingers do not want to admit that an unregulated capitalist system (hell, even what we’ve got right now) is basically a system designed specifically for amoral sociopaths to succeed in.
No CEO ever made it to the top of his industry by caring deeply about the quality of life and financial security of his employees. The ones who reach the top are the ones who manage to squeeze one more penny of profit for the shareholders by any method available, including “cutting overhead”. That is what they are PAID to do!
Ayn Rand had it ass backwards: the parasites are the ones at the top sucking the lifeblood out of the economy and the people actually doing the labor, designing and building the widgets and performing the services, for the benefit of themselves and a tiny few.
The function of a corporate CEO is pretty similar to a virus, when you think about it. If you want a system fueled by greed, then you’ve got to legally compel the greedy to do the right thing, or else they won’t. It’s simple human nature. Libertarians are fools to believe otherwise.
Apparently, this relic from the 19th century doesn’t comprehend that sexual harassment involves persistent and unwelcome sexual advances that the target of these advances has done nothing to encourage and that are even worse when sexual compliance is tied to keeping a job much less advancing professionally. In his infinite “wisdom,” sexual harassers shouldn’t be held accountable for their objectionable behavior. This is one more reason as a woman for me not to vote for someone I wouldn’t give the time of day to. His followers are everything that those of us who support President Obama get accused of being. They confuse obstinate adherence to harmful, outdated ideals with principled consistency. They are also willing to ignore the fact that his few good ideas are vastly outnumbered by his appallingly bad ones that would do great harm to this country’s well-being. Apparently, they haven’t given much thought to the inevitable consequences of getting rid of certain government agencies like EPA and the Department of Education, let alone his willingness to let the states decide which of our rights to support–something that would lead to even more vastly unequal results in one country. He is also opposed to the minimum wage, something that should concern all Americans.
Just as Palinbots have done, they respond with vitriol and name-calling of those of us who don’t buy what Ron Paul is trying to sell. In addition to living in the past, he is simply too old and inflexible at 76 years of age.
truley a paul ing
He’s like an onion, so many layers that reveal new ones, one after another. There’s the racist, homophobe, delusional, paranoid, and now the misogynist layer. He’s not that complicated, to figure out he would be terrible as a leader of the free world, and he’s a pathological liar, never taking personal responsibility for his own egregious mistakes.
Well, what he proposes for America is simple. It’s called anarchy.
I am ABSOLUTELY against sexual harassment. I have been molested and raped, and had my children molested and raped. However, I do NOT believe it is the job of the Federal Government to come into play. The role of the Federal Government is VERY limited. It’s the role of the state, the county or the Sheriff to take a very strong stand against sexual harassment. Ron Paul was talking about the role of the Federal Government. He wants to take things out that do NOT belong there. Where did anybody hear that he was pro sexual harassment? Ron Paul respects both sexes equally. I have not found a hint of misogyny in his campaign, and know many women who feel the same way. He is a very respectful man, respecting the unborn, men, women and the elderly.
He comes from a time where the victim, usually a woman, was blamed.
Sexual harassment is not just a dirty joke. It is a pattern of unwelcome behavior that continues AFTER the victim has asked for it to stop. And it is not always so easy to ask for it to stop if the person doing the harassment is a superior which is often the case.
He probably thinks it is ok for bosses to fire people b/c they are gay, black, or a woman who should stay barefoot and pregnant. Just a dinosaur.
Sorry… mis-translation. Some of my children were molested and raped. It’s a disgrace!
Ron Paul is a crazy loon. As a conservative, he is embarrassing. As liberals, you should stop pointing out his craziness and hope he’s the nominee for the Republicans. Obama would win all 57 states.
“Rep. Paul has been moving up in Iowa, because this extremist message appeals to the very very conservative caucus goers.” – actually this is factually incorrect and it keeps getting repeated everywhere. Most Paul voters in Iowa are NOT conservative. They are independent and liberals who are pissed at Obama and changed their registration. The overwhelming majority of college age voters who are caucusing are voting for Paul, but they are not social conservatives.
Iowa is very diverse even in their conservatism and you will have fundamentalists (Santorum) Moderates (Romney) Right-Libertarians (Paul) a few scattered old style conservatives (Gingrich) as well as few tea party members who love Bachmann.
I have not heard of anyone who voted for Bush or McCain who is now voting for Paul, but I have talked to a LOT of people who voted for Obama who are now supporting Paul.
No one should kid themselves into underestimating how much pull he has on this (left) side of the aisle.
Well Ron shouldn’t have gotten so bent out of shape when Bruno dropped his pants in front of him!!!!!!!!!!
The smaller the pond, the more easily polluted; the smaller the governmental unit, the more easily biased and corrupted. Believe me, if your employer is a big frog, you’ll get no redress in a small pond. As for Mr. Paul’s private attitudes, I know only how he brought up his son. Acqua Buddha.
As someone descended from Corncobs who still has Corncob cousins on the right bank of the Mississippi, I’d say Corncob reactions are not a good predictor for the rest of the country, but those of my Corncob cousins who are Republicans will never vote for a Democrat, while those who are Democrats will never vote for Ron Paul.
Voters who want wars, torture, assassinations, “humanitarian” bombings in oil rich countries, indefinite detentions, drone attacks that kill the innocent, erosion of civil liberties, domestic war on the people (drug war), out-of-control debt and spending, graft and greed, crony capitalism, pandering to special interests, bailouts, more of the same, must NOT vote for Ron Paul.
Voters who want peace, a humane foreign policy, restoration of civil liberties, an end to the war on drugs, sound money, balanced budgets, honesty, integrity and transparency in government, and a President wholly committed to Constitutional government can vote for Ron Paul.
Ain’t that difficult a choice.
Did he really just say “Why don’t they quit?” How out of touch can he be to think in this economy leaving ANY job is that simple? And what does that mean for the next woman in that position? Does she “just quit”, too? What about the one after that? Mr. Paul, why don’t you take your own advice?
The whole question takes more than a sound bite and clearly less than thirty seconds to respond is not fair. Dr. Paul said: “Well, the whole thing is, is you have to get a better definition of sexual harassment.”
That seems reasonable to me and all the hostility towards the man doesn’t seem fair.
Laws don’t stop perverts men or women and we have to learn how to handle all sorts of situations.
A calm honest discussion would be nice but people are to emotional for that, everything is knee jerk response and that is how the media controls the population.
If you want to know the man I suggest read his books, he is NOT the evil man he is being portrayed. Good luck we will all need it this coming year.
He left the room and didn’t put up with it. He didn’t need a law, he used his head. If something disgusts you it would make sense to leave.
He has two daughters I think.
With all due respect, his books are part of his problem, not only the articles he has refused to condemn. The man stands condemned by his own words.
I think you need to re-examine what Ron Paul is really saying. None of what you attribute to him applies.
Good, then when you grow up and get married you wont have any problem with me fondling your wife and daughters. Case closed
Ohhh…you mean like Sheriff Joe Arapio down in Maricopa County AZ, 5th largest county in the country…like THAT guy who allowed over 400 cases (and counting) of sexual predatory acts, rape, wife/child abuse to go un-resolved as he was too lazy…no, strike that, the smaller towns on the out skirts of the county didn’t cow-tow to his demands ($$/blackmail) so he just ignored the cases, the calls for help for a few years…oh, you mean the local sheriff should be “the law” not a national law that makes sure each and every citizen is protected…oh…
I see, you all would rather focus on this than giving Obama power to murder, torture or imprison FOR LIFE anyone he deems a terrorist. Boy, you have a real sense of perspective, don’t you? Keep in mind, Ron Paul is the ONLY nationally known political figure who has spoken out against the National Defense Authorization Act. I don’t agree with Ron Paul on the “sexual harassment issue,” but I understand his point, which if well reasoned and not political pandering.
Obama already had that power. It was passed on by herr Bushler.
Ron Paul not liking NDAA is one tiny element that could be considered positive about Paul. There is little else positive
Laws in the workplace do stop harassment. Please get off the we don’t need any government trip. Its what makes Paul dangerous
My thoughts on sexual harrassment. When it happened to me, I was very offended. I asked the person to “stop.” I was so naive and new to this type of disrespect that I felt like I had provoked it. It’s very demeaning. There does need to be laws about it with consequences enforced. But I also understand his thinking to a degree. There are some people who will use sexual harrassment to their advantage and get all they can out of it. I asked for an apology and for the corportation to define and create policy regarding sexual harrassment. Education is of unmost importance for all levels of management.
Education backed by discipline.
At my level in my company I attended training every year. How to deal with it, how to detect & deal with it before it gets to the complaint stage. Nip it in the bud so to speak. Usually a quiet word gets the job done
Then he mustn’t give a Tisch about them.
Paul feels that being offended doesn’t constitute a need for a Federal law. He’s talking of those cases where jokes brought down the law. Paul wants laws to deal with major violations, not if someones’ feelings were hurt.
The definition, in a nutshell, is that you have to put up with sexually-tinged carp to keep your job, or at least not get retaliatory bad treatment. The gravamen is that they know you don’t like it, and they do it anyway. You can’t walk away unless you’re willing to be unemployed, and- if the harasser is vindictive- unemployable.
There are a whole lot of serious problems out there – but should we really “make a federal case” about every one of them?
Why bother having state and local government, if everything is a federal crime? Let’s do away with this 50 states nonsense and just have “departments” instead, everything subordinate to the federal government.
Is that really where you wish to go? I most certainly do not. What if the federal government criminalizes, for example, with an organization which it does not like? What stands in the way of you and indefinite detention, Comrades?
Be careful what you wish for. You may get it and not like it.
Efficient? Is that what you meant to say? They are most inefficient, and frequently insufficient, as well.
I understand what he means really when you think about it. You have state laws that handle these things and federal law shouldn’t have to be used. The government doesn’t need to jump on someone for a joke heard or just a statement. The company should take action for itself and if it refuses then obviously that is reason to quit. If the company continues to follow these ethics then it will most certainly fall due to lack of personnel. This is how the free market works…if it was working.
If now we have companies to big to fail they obviously can sue and counter sue and whatever anyone who raises charges against them and just beat the individual financially before true justice would come to pass. If it was a free market then most companies would become smaller but also perhaps easier to deal with on a civil or state level. Now i know saying just quit is a bit harsh but Ron is brutally forward and he does understand how hard it is to find a job. This is why he wants free market open. He wants to see multiple companies doing the same thing. For instance you want to work on computers and programming, well you can choose microsoft or apple….but who else can you go to. You become so limited in your endeavor that you have to stay even if the environment is disgraceful. Now if there were more companies in that same field then you could leave and choose another company with little issue. Since the market is run and cornered by these companies,free market is really limited and options cut drastically. I’m not saying that these are horrid companies this is just an example.
Paul has a firmer understanding and a deeper critical thought process than most candidates and though he comes off a bit harsh at times he truly does mean well. He wants people to start thinking more efficiently
and much deeper. I believe that once the fed is gone and a sound currency established and once the free market is back on it’s feet, then these problems will be resolved faster than ever. Especially now when you consider the internet is available. You could easily look up a company and find present and past employees leaving statement of a malpractice or a harassment issue that remained unresolved.This would make a company change it’s practices quickly. Now though to post and pursue something online relative to an issue, then you are more likely to be destroyed by a company by defamation charges and extreme court charges for merely mentioning a said companies internal dispute. I’m not saying what he says is right or wrong, I just think we the people should definately learn to handle these issues more local instead of handing more and more power to the government in hopes of speedy and just reperation at the expense of the american people.
I have followed Ron Paul for decades. None? I think you should go to the Daily Paul website and click on the “Activism” tab (top right hand corner), and if that doesn’t impress you, try a few of the other tabs, like “Videos.”
He condemned the articles maybe you didn’t hear it, in fact he regrets being lax on overseeing them. I know of no other candidate who wants to helps minorities more from the unjust legal system to the war on drugs.
I thought his books were excellent and was really surprised because when I first heard about him they kept calling him names
I watched his videos and read his books and was amazed how much sense he made.
What words has he said to be condemned? I never saw a video where he said anything terrible.
Oh my! What universe are we living in that Romney is the “moderate” candidate! Most of my Republican friends are mortified by the selection of candidates offered this year. Several are even beginning to look more realistically and intelligently at Obama and not just buying into their party line about the current administration.
Maybe, he taught them to responsible and how to protect themselves in bad situations.
Since you like metaphors – Capitalism is cancer on the societal level. One definition of cancer is “uncontrolled growth in an anaerobic environment without regard for the welfare of the whole.”
I thin k you are going out on a limb here. Sexual harassment applies to everyone in the US, therefore its federal. That is legislated by congress.
I like that a lot better than watching the states that are easily bought like Wisconsin, Florida and Michigan do things.
You might not like the states thing if you get it. Or have you forgotten how each state under the reign of the GOP is now going nuts trying to get their own laws that take your wifes rights away?
I would hope that I would have taught my daughter or myself how to handle the situation BEFORE any pervert tries something. If a person does not know how to handle themselves on the job how can they handle themselves off? Your wife or daughters will be walking victims if they are never taught to be aware and how to respond to unwanted advances.
You have no idea what sexual harassment is do you?
Paul is so out of touch with real people on the street I doubt he has any understanding of problems people face
His foreign policy is an example of that
You think that horrible stuff is just local and not at the highest levels.
I suggest you go to Youtube and watch “Conspiracy of Silence” it is criminal what is going on at the highest levels of government.
We agree that bad stuff is going on and want it to stop but thinking that law and officials are going to stop the behavior, it won’t. You can have all kinds of laws but if we have a corrupted system then they can unjustly use the laws against you.
The country is a mess and I believe all the parties have been corrupted by money and power. We are in deep deep trouble and hope and pray good people can work together I don’t care what you believe and hope you don’t care what I believe just respect me as I will respect you. Good luck
But unlike a cancer, capitalism can be engineered to be quite beneficial. It’s a only problem when you get lunatics like Paul who believe that the best thing for cancer is to let it do whatever it wants. ;)
I know it’s not simply jokes or being mean. You know that,too, don’t you?
“Sexual Harrasment” has to be legally defined or else the law is too vague, and just deals with individual’s feelings.
But the point is that Paul thinks there IS a line that can be crossed, but it may not be your line.
This article is demagoging the words, what Ron Paul says is that sexual harassment should be better defined, as it is, could be very vague, and leads to idiotic law suits. Chris never lets Ron Paul finish addressing the issues so they always come-out incomplete.
I think you have just established that you are a moral cretin.
The Paul PaTroll is out in force tonight, I see, and they’re so cute, the way they’ve memorized their lines and sing them in a perfect chorus!
Newsflash – being responsible doesn’t mean that you can’t become a victim. Going to work shouldn’t be a ‘bad situation’ that you need to protect yourself from.
Um, it’s harassment, not harrasment. Which is possibly why you weren’t able to find the legal definition, which is easily available on line:
“Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment, submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individuals, or such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. (29 C.F.R. § 1604.11 )”
And despite what some of the cretins here seem to think, the courts aren’t drowning in frivolous lawsuits about dirty jokes. It’s far from easy to bring such a suit, because it’s very difficult to prove, and generally only the most extreme cases ever get filed.
So, essentially, you are saying that the fault and responsibility lie with the victim in these situations? This is why the federal government has to put these regulations in place, otherwise victims of harrasment would have no protection. Do you really not understand that?
It is legally defined. Look it up
Do lawyers take cases they cannot win? Paul is out of touch. All he is doing it trying to reduce the government so that you don’t have the right as a woman to complain about it
Except that in the workplace, you can’t just “leave”, especially if it’s a superior who’s doing the harrassment.
Ron Paul is delusional, so most of the time his statements are incoherent. Chris Wallace had nothing to do with it.
You’re now saying that this man, who wants to be the leader of the Free World, is unable to put across a simple, clear message because Chris Wallace was mean to him?
Just ask the Grinch, life is so unfair with moderators. Its much harder to spread BS
I’ve known women who were sexually harassed in the workplace. Worse, I’ve talked with quite a few women who as young girls were not only SEXUALLY HARASSED IN THEIR CHURCH by their pastor (or elders or youth minister), BUT HAD BEEN RAPED, SOMETIMES REPEATEDLY. Let me tell you of some of the commonalities of their experiences as related.
First, if they’ve been raped, they are not believed (unless there is physical evidence of a beating which is not always the case – or it’s covered up or the girl waits to see if things get better). If it’s a teenage girl, and she goes to her parents, they punish her (severely) for lying and usually accuse her of “making it up” or “letting the devil play with your fantasies”. If she goes to anyone in the church or to the authorities, her church and the people she associates with turn on her. I’ve heard time and time again of girls (teenage) and young women punished by the church for “being sexually active” (using nice language there) and “falsely accusing the (minister/youth director/whatever)”. They are almost always labeled a “Jezebel”. In fact, if you hear of a young lady being called a Jezebel, it’s almost dead certain she was raped by someone in authority (in the church) and “made the mistake” of trying to get help.
Someone, usually connected with the police (except in more progressive areas) demands that the girl PROVE it happened once it gets to the authorities. They also get the demand for proof from others. Or they’re grilled for hours and hours, while people try to get them confused so the authorities can deny that it really happened.
In all cases, both those of sexual harassment and rape, there is a concerted effort, not only at the church level but at the community level, to protect the status and reputation of the rapist/harasser. This happens ALL THE TIME. I’ve heard stories of the effort being extended clear up to the state level (as the young lady later learned).
In a couple of cases, the girl was made pregnant. If she got an abortion and people found out, she was vilified and received a lot of verbal abuse (sometimes for a long period of time – like years). In one case, the girl finally (after getting past the local authorities) was able to get a genetic test done and was able to demonstrate that yes, it was the Pastor’s baby. Then the church accused her of seducing him. At the last time I communicated with her, she had lost all of her family connections, her childhood friends, and was trying to rebuild her life from scratch. It wasn’t easy, especially as she had a child to care for (and that child also was vilified in her hometown as a “bastard”). She had to develop new friendships and an entirely new support system. As she’d been raised in that church, she didn’t really know how and was doing the best she could… she had a boyfriend who was a big help.
I believe that the case against the pastor was thrown out of court because she wasn’t able to be in court on the hearing day (also a common theme – there are legal roadblocks thrown in their faces AND they’re very strongly pressured to drop the case). If I remember her story right, she would have had to return to the town where it happened and most of the town was violently hostile towards her. (Believe me, fundamentalists and especially dominionists can get very violent and commit crimes – like arson, poisoning, maiming, murder, etc.)
I was pleased to see in the news a while back a case very similar to that I was aware of, but in that situation the pastor and church tried to cover everything up. It was so good to hear that the authorities had pursued the case and put the worthless monster in jail (and now he carries the label of “sexual offender”).
The thing is, in many areas the police don’t have a clue about sexual offenses and they have to be forced by federal law to include training about the realities of rape. It’s pretty obvious that the training was ignored by a lot of police (especially backwater types), when you hear comments like “you shouldn’t have worn that outfit” and so on – and I’ve heard comments like that as recently as the last couple of years.
What I hope you understand from this is that Ron Paul is wrong on so many levels it’s not funny. People don’t have the freedom he thinks they do, to just quit a job. That was patently true in the couple of sexual harassment situations I know of. The girls (less than 18) were coerced into having sex to keep their jobs. That was the only job they had and finding another was nearly impossible in their situations. They complained to the company, and the company moved them to a new location – but put them into situations where they couldn’t do the job and were fired. In both of those situations, they were then many miles away from family or friends, no money, and on the street. That’s what often happens when someone reports sexual harassment and it’s handled at the community/company/local level.
You cannot trust the churches to do the right thing. You cannot trust your local community. If you trust a corporation, you’re a fool. There MUST be laws at a level where local politics vanish into the “noise” and where the reputation of some local bigwig doesn’t matter. That level can only be found at the Federal level.
So, Ron Paul is wrong about sexual harassment (I suspect he’s been guilty of it). He’s wrong about people being able to leave the situation. He’s wrong about taking care of it at the local level. When you examine the rest of what he stands for, you find that you’re buying a package where the condoning of sexual harassment fits in with the rest of the ideas… he’s a stealth dominionist and they clearly are not friendly to women’s issues. Shoot, he, and they, are anti-freedom and pro-theocracy. I could also argue that they’re the inverse of what Jesus taught, but that is another topic.
Like they have a choice?
You’ve obviously never been in that situation, and if you know anyone who was, they obviously didn’t tell you what things were really like.
In some areas, your boss literally holds your life in his or her hands. If you loose your job, you could quickly find yourself homeless and destitute. Then life REALLY gets nasty.
Whenever I encounter someone brainwashed by the right (usually by the “Good Christians”, i.e. fundamentalists), they always blame the victim. ALWAYS. Did she get raped? Maybe she shouldn’t wear provocative clothing (in whose eyes is it provocative? – it might just be something cool for the Florida summer!). Did he get robbed? Maybe he shouldn’t have been walking at that time? Did they have to do without food? The man needs to get a job (forget he’s been working 70 hours a week already and of course, the woman should be home taking care of the kiddies). Did they become homeless? Well, obviously they did something wrong – didn’t budget right, were using drugs, didn’t work hard enough…
How fatuous and stupid do you want me to go with the sort of arguments I’ve heard from the “blame the victim” crowd?
The false claims of sexual harassment are rather rare. Sometimes the claim can result from a cultural misunderstanding (view the second “The Gods Must Be Crazy” film for an example of something that could be misconstrued). People need to be aware of the differences between individuals and take that into account.
As Shiva says, education is the key. A good boss would prevent such things in the first place and make sure that the work environment is not threatening. Education and communication would go a long way to prevent cultural misunderstandings.
And he’s been on my radar for decades too… as a nutcase.
I remember when I was Pentecostal, hearing his name and reading something by him. The stuff was given to me by a Pentecostal tax evader who was trying to mobilize people against the US government.
The guy (and a couple of others who hung out with him) was also very much into the John Birch society and a lot of the “hidden UN bases on American soil!!!” bullshit. Even back then, I had Ron Paul connected with the John Birch society, who I thought were a bunch of kooks.
All of this talk of Ron Paul brings back the memories (my memory is strongly associational)… in the 80s some “militia” types I met also were quoting Ron Paul. I don’t remember the specifics.
ARE YOU JUST PLAIN FOOLISH?
Ron Paul does not ENDORSE sexual harassment of any kind, he would leave it to the States to enforce this crime, but not the over bearing huge ole’ Federal government. Each time the Federal Government gets involved, that’s another step towards Federal takeover of your life! Can’t people get it???? What the heck is so hard to understand about this?
Should the gvt hold your hand when you go to the restroom too? …just in case you used too much bath tissue? I mean, come on! The man is a reasonable, honest, good man…in fact so honest that they can’t find any dirt on him so they have to dig, dig, dig, dig, dig to knit pick something on him so they can twist it. AH HAH! He is unelectable then! LOL GMAFB – Yeah, lets allow the media to decide for us so we get another wolf in sheeps clothing (Bush, Obama).. Yep, can’t wait!
Ron Paul is America’s last chance, even if you don’t believe in everything he stands for. Think back when the last time was you agreed 100% with what prior presidents-to-be told us on the campaign trail!
At least with Paul, what you see is what you get. The reason the media, the corporate fascists, the democrats AND republicans are so afraid of this guy is that they KNOW he will do what he says he will do and they all won’t get their special priviledges (money/power) anymore. Unlike Obummer, he will KEEP HIS PROMISES.
A President Paul would put a swift end to that!
I suggest you read my other replies on this topic.
I remember something written by Ron Paul being pushed on me by a tax evader and militant anti-government (“UN bases on American soil!”) nutcase. There was some sort of connection to the John Birch society… the tax evader and his friends all were big into stuff from the John Birch society.
I clearly remember thinking of him that he was a nutcase.
Actually the EEOC does include Jokes and what one person may find inappropriate another may not: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/pdf/whatissh.pdf
Saying “you would not understand – it is a female thing” falls into the category of disparate treatment based on gender or sex discrimination.
The important thing is not the intent of the person doing the behavior, but the attitude and response of the other person. Words or behaviors that one person finds amusing or inoffensive, another person may find embarrassing or humiliating.
Telling a dirty joke is included in Sexual Harassment.
Because Dr. Paul doesn’t think something should be a federal Law doesn’t mean that states can’t regulate sexual harassment, remember Bre, that murder and theft are not federal crimes unless you were to kill a mailman and steal his mail (or another federal employee in the course of federal business). The man is against everything being a federal issue not that he thinks sexual harassment is just fine.
I tend to agree that if you don’t like the job quit. People have often said that I have a problem with authority and my response was “I have a problem with arbitrary and capricious authority that imposes itself upon me without my consent.” When I work for someone I submit myself to their authority completely and the only condition is that if I deem their authority, the job, their attitude towards me, don’t like the other employees, or whatever comes with it to be beyond what I am willing to submit to then I reserve the right to quit at any time. I have no sense of entitlement to any particular job though and the people I’ve worked beside or have worked for me that did have a sense of entitlement and wanted to warm the bench at work weren’t going to be able to hack the amount of effort that was required anyway. They fire themselves before anyone else gets a chance to . . . Never worked with a crew that didn’t keep it real . . .
Keep your war mongering government and let you kids have a country that doesn’t respect the individual. Everything that made the USA great is being tossed out.
I think you are out of touch Shiva. You really shouldn’t speak about someone if you haven’t really done your homework on the man. You would have not found me saying this a couple years back, but I’ve come to understand each GOP candidate by studying what they stand for and what they’ve done. “you will know a man by his deeds…”
This is all I can say and if you still oppose the Freedom and Liberty this country STILL offers, albiet perhaps not for long then may God go with you.
I pray for our Country in a time of need that the people chose the right President, whomever it will be. I really mean that too. If it’s Ron Paul than so be it, if it’s someone else then so be it. First thing is the honesty factor, how honest is the person and what have they done in their past to prove that consistent honesty?
With absolutely NO respect, his books are part of the problem! And, why would I read his own book to get an ‘unbiased’ view of him? If you haven’t seen a video where he said anything terrible, then you need to pontificate about Saint Paul a little less and watch his videos a little more. He is dangerous.
Hmmm… could you afford to be fired or quit and be out of work for over a year? Maybe not get unemployment (often happens when you’re fired, especially when you can’t prove that it was unlawful)?
That’s the case of people I’ve known who were sexually harrassed… the two girls ended up homeless for a while – literally living on the streets. Most people… and I know what I’m talking about… most people are only about two paychecks from being homeless.
Then consider that maybe not everyone lives in a place where employers treat their employees like human beings. Imagine having to work for people who believe an employer has the right to physically abuse their employees and are encouraged in this thinking by their church. Believe me, such places exist. I have the scar to show for it (literally). Finding a job where you’re treated like a human being is difficult in such an area, unless you’re lucky or know someone (or are related to someone).
Count yourself lucky – VERY VERY lucky, if you can quit a job and find another before you end up without food or shelter (especially if others depend on you). In fact, if that is the case, I would say of your life that it has been very much sheltered from reality.
And even if it’s ‘just dirty jokes’ (which it’s NOT) what kind of a moron presidential wannabee wants to make that OK in a public workplace? Or ANYwhere? Ron Paul wants to throw out the baby with the bathwater with his anti-big government stance. He speaks as if government has no place in a case like this. It does, because the knuckle-draggers who are the harassers sure aren’t lining up to self-police. Ron Paul thought the Civil Rights Act was a bad idea too, and voted against it in a recent symbolic vote. (look it up) He’s a fool.
Maybe. Maybe not. Either way, NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO!!!
The GOP standby – if you don’t like the question, blame the media for ‘gotcha journalism’ Ron Paul is a dottering old misogynistic bigot.
“When I work for someone I submit myself to their authority completely and the only condition is that if I deem their authority, the job, their attitude towards me, don’t like the other employees, or whatever comes with it to be beyond what I am willing to submit to then I reserve the right to quit at any time.”
You’re construing the employment contract too narrowly. You are suggesting that your only option is (and should be) to quit. However, it’s completely reasonable for a sexual harassment victim to have another option besides ending the contract. Your and Paul’s solution is to have the victim voluntarily bear an additional harm (losing income) even beyond the harassment. I presume that you think that the market will fix this problem on its own, but labor history disproves this.
Ron Paul has posited (and I’d imagine you’d agree) that state governments certainly have the power to make laws that regulate employee contracts, including anti-discrimination laws. The only thing we disagree on is whether the federal government has also that power. Here again history proves that state governments are worse at protecting against discrimination than the federal government. And it should be evident that leaving it to state governments results in (at best) some states allowing much more discrimination than others.
It seems to me that using the “free market” approach to dealing with sexual harassment (if enough people quit, no one will want to work there) will solve nothing except causing there to be less and less jobs available for women.
I’m agreeing with a conservative?
I think liberals like me would do better to just point out that his policy positions are crazy, instead of insulting the man himself. He might very well be a non-prejudiced, intelligent person, who happens to have policy positions that would set the country back 50 years.
Ron Paul is mostly a libertarian, and that means he subscribes to the non-aggression axiom (no violent physical coercion except in self defense).
When a liberal or conservative says “this is a problem, and the government ought to solve it.” They often are quietly ignoring the “how” in that statement. To the extent the state acts as the state and not a peaceful private organization it is using force or threatening to. In other words, if we are talking about a government solution, we are talking about coercion.
Ron Paul, like all libertarians, looks at a problem like sexual harassment and asks “while this is a serious problem, does it violate the non-aggression axiom?” No, it doesn’t, so he and all libertarians rule out the government as a solution. Instead we look to private solutions, such as spreading awareness, supporting fellow coworkers, charities, etc.
Look, I recognize that liberals and conservatives could care less about the non-aggression axiom and I realize that you could cherry pick a few of Paul’s view that don’t quite live up to this axiom (abortion being the most well known), but if you are sincere about your analysis of Paul or any libertarian’s views, you have to analyze it from the perspective of the non-aggression axiom or else you are beating a straw man.
My point is this, don’t make baseless accusations of the man, but just call in like it is. Ron Paul is only willing you use non-violent means to combat sexual harassment, and you believe that violence or the threat of violence is necessary. This is a completely legitimate position to take if you are prepared to defend it. Don’t be afraid to state it clearly if this is what you believe.
Didn’t you watch the video? He explains himself nicely. Sexual harassment is NOT just a dirty joke. This was in regards to people getting the Federal Government involved with situations like these. In regards to violence, he’s in agreement with getting the police involved. Just watch the video before commenting.
Sure you can. I did.
So you judge the guy because some annoying nut jobs liked him? I’m a fan of Marilyn Manson. Do I hate the guy because some teens who shot up Columbine listened to him? No.
I got news for you. All government is full of corruption… no matter where you go. Personal freedom and liberty is what you should be fighting for.
Check your facts!
Ronald “Ronnie” Paul, Jr.
Lori Paul Pyeatt
Randal “Rand” Paul
The point is, people… he is saying it shouldn’t be a FEDERAL issue… he is all about letting the states determine these types of laws… and not having Big Brother be in charge of every rule in America.
Walkaway, you’ve really hit a button with me here when you say that my life has been sheltered from reality. I’ve probably had much more reality than you can imagine.
I’ve had the most abusive employers verbally and physically that you can imagine. I’ve never collected an unemployment check in my life because I’ve always been called an independent contractor so they didn’t have to pay any of the extras like the 7.5% social security tax, unemployment, workmans comp, or insurance. I work like a dog in bitter 5 degree to scorching 105 degree temperatures 30 foot up walking on pulins where my feet might never step on anything wider than 3.5 inches all day an it’s not the impact when you fall that is going to do you it is the stakes sticking up that you will impale yourself on and all the stuff than will fall on you and beat you into the ground. The joke is that if you fall you are fired before you hit the ground for violating the safety rules. I’ve never had insurance in my life and anything less than a 4″ gash I fix with super glue and duct tape. Osha don’t come round here . . .
When the housing market crashed I found my self with a 3 day notice in January 2008 and guess who doesn’t get unemployment? The independent contractor who was really an employee by any department of labor standards but they don’t care and the unemployment office doesn’t care. I can’t work for a corporation because I have that misdemeanor weed conviction from 12 years ago (Ron Paul wants to end that lifelong discrimination for the all too common indiscretion of youth). My application when I am competing for the rare opening against the other thousands of unemployed construction workers in the same boat will not make it past the receptionist because I have to put that I am a weed criminal in that little box.
So I go months without work and finally get 6 weeks of work with a totally insane guy tiling and when that ends I go another 3-4 months and that is how was for 2 years. I have $15,000 worth of various tools from when I did have work so I got myself licensed and get some work by word of mouth and on craigslist having to do it on the cheap because there is not a lot out there and a lot of people who spent decades learning the trades and can’t just change some other occupation over night which are scarce anyway. If you get a little behind on your child support the States answer is to take your drivers license even if you have a great relationship with your sons mom and she is doing well financially and calls them and asks them not to . . . they don’t care, they are the all powerful state and their one size solution will fit all. They put every obstacle in the way that they can for you just to feed yourself and live indoors and have heat and and be a dad to your noncustodial 13 year old son.
The only thing that gets me by is I live in a house I purchased in the ghetto for $12,000 on contract over 5 years and I can get wifi from the Martin Luther King Center a half a block away. My neighborhood is littered with abandoned homes because no one wants to live near the public housing projects. No body ever suggests that the people that bought a house that they could afford should get bailed out of the ghetto while they like to suggest that people that bought nice houses on the hill that they can’t afford should get bailed out. Most of the people that rant about Ron Paul being a racist wouldn’t dream of walking down my street where I am the only white guy but they think of themselves as really progressive on race. I like my neighbors and except for a few real criminals that the system can’t make room for because they spend all their money locking up petty drug offenders we do all right.
You know what all the white construction workers and all my black neighbors have in common? They hate the government with a passion. They can go on and on about how the wonderful government puts the screws to them constantly. They don’t trust the government and they don’t call the cops. Somebody will make an anonymous call if they guy with the knife in him don’t look like he can get up and that’s about it. No body is going to testify because courts are just another place that victimizes them and if you are a victim the police will try to turn it on you somehow. The police treat everyone as if a white person in my neighborhood must be buying drugs and if you are black you must be selling drugs. The police run in wolf packs and we all are their prey. I wouldn’t say that the people are racist here, I would say that the drug war is racist and as the police are troops of the drug war the ghetto gets to feel it.
We don’t want anything from the government! We want them to go away! You can go on and on about getting the government to help us but we don’t want it. Every thing they sell as a way to help us just makes us victims at their hands! You want Obama’s health care plan? Just a fine they are going to stick me with for not having insurance. I don’t want to fill out a form that says that I am poor! I want to be left alone. I don’t care if my life is struggle I do not trust that they are ever capable of ever administrating justice or of doing anything but come up with another way to screw us! If we give them money they will give it to wall street billionaires to party on and build their monopolies and crush the little guy! They will give it to Walmart so they can build a big store where nobody makes a living wage 3 miles away so that all the mom and pops in the ghetto close and now we all have to get 3 miles to Walmart and all the money leaves our community!
Ron Paul wants to end the taxing of the little guy so some social engineers can give it to their cronie billionaire buddies. All power corrupts and if they have the ability to redistribute wealth they will distribute it to the wealthy. I would much rather have to quit a job because of the conditions than to give the federal government any power at all. At least with local jurisdiction in the matter you stand a chance of somebody having a heart and caring because they actually see the people on the ground. The small community organiztions are the only ones that even pretend to listen. I can go to city hall and speak but congress does’t want to hear me. Leave us alone with your federalism! Why don’t you minimize the federal government and then try to socialize your community if that is what you want so that you can have the system where the people are and it actually can help them with what they really need and not some one size fits all keeps you down check but what you really might need is a one time $2000 for a car so you can work and pay your own way.
I live in Illinois 6 blocks from the bridge across the Mississippi River from Iowa and I am am going to be at a caucus precinct Tuesday (the rules allow it) with a camera to make sure that every one of Ron Paul’s votes get counted and the party insiders don’t try to misrepresent what really happened and steal this from him. Ron Paul is the republican no corporate money outsider that is going to give the republican party the enema that they need.
Does that sound like I live some sheltered life? Life is rough all over . . . Ron Paul!
Because big brother at the state level is better than big brother at the federal level? It’s big brother either way – the citizens still have morality cops in their bedrooms – they just work for different people
That’s the very object of promoting sexual harassment.
That’s the very object of promoting sexual harassment, and that’s why reactionaries like it.
N. B.: Had error message first time I posted, posted again.
There were no state laws on this subject prior to the federal legislation, and almost all such state laws were written to track the federal statutes. We have fairly uniform rules of evidence and civil procedure in most of our states only since the federal rules were promulgated, and again, as a result of the state rules being revised to track them. I’d point out that those who are all for a misdigested hodgepodge of state laws on matters like this are the very ones who demand permissive concealed, or even open, carry laws on the federal level that will override more restrictive state, county, and municipal ones, and their general demand is for maximum federal empowerment of bullies and minimum protection on any level for their intended victims.
Now sure where you are going with that. But personal freedom does not include the freedom to harass someone
You really don’t understand anything but what you read on blogs huh? How is wanting sexual harassment laws to be better defined, and applied at THE STATE LEVEL crazy, or idiotic, you know the whole constitution, pesky rules and such that separate us from the animals. The federal government has no right to enact such laws… Murder is a state-issue, handles by state governments, and state courts, yet you think it “crazy” for them to be able to set their own laws, as to the desires of the people of that state? Wow, a lot of people on here would make Hitler smile…DAMN SMALL GOVERNMENT, we need one-size fits all mentality on every issue! That doesn’t make you a robot or anything, LOL. And Paul is out of touch? I think 90% of the people on this page are out of touch, and borderline brown coats, that have no respect for local government.
Paul wants no laws but you say he thinks the police should be involved? Why should the police be involved? if there is no law? Do you call the police every time someone is sexually harassed?
Sexual harassment laws cover everyone in the US. They are federal laws and there is nothing wrong with having federal laws. Just bcuase Paul wants to give the government to the lowest bidder doesn’t mean the rest of the people agree.
This is an example of Paul making stupid statements and completely brainwashed people rushing in to defend him
The law is very clear as well as the well documented law suits.
So, when was the last time YOU sat in a sexual harassment class presented by a company’s HR department. Sounds as if you idea of what is idiotic is out-dated, uninformed and “incomplete”
The following is standard, defined behaviors on what Paul says is “vague”?
* Public harassers are flagrant in their seductive or sexist attitudes towards colleagues, subordinates, students, etc.
* Private harassers carefully cultivate a restrained and respectable image on the surface, but when alone with their target, their demeanor changes.
Langelan describes three different classes of harassers.
* Predatory harasser who gets sexual thrills from humiliating others. This harasser may become involved in sexual extortion, and may frequently harass just to see how targets respond. Those who don’t resist may even become targets for rape.
* Dominance harasser: the most common type, who engages in harassing behavior as an ego boost.
* strategic or territorial harassers who seek to maintain privilege in jobs or physical locations, for example a man’s harassing female employees in a predominantly male occupation.
Hilarious! I spend a good deal of time seeing what Paul is up to and you don’t. Paul has no respect for the individual. And I do not “oppose the Freedom and Liberty”. That is hilarious. Paul is way out of touch. He wants a government so weak it would easily be taken over by the religious fundies he follows.
Paul is so unelectable its not even a joking matter.
My war mongering government?LOL
…”I tend to agree that if you don’t like the job quit…”
Effects of sexual harassment on organizations
* Decreased productivity and increased team conflict
* Decrease in success at meeting financial goals (because of team conflict)
* Decreased job satisfaction
!!!!!!Loss of staff and expertise from resignations to avoid harassment or resignations/firings of alleged harassers; loss of students who leave school to avoid harassment!!!!!!
* Decreased productivity and/or increased absenteeism by staff or students experiencing harassment
* Increased health care costs and sick pay costs because of the health consequences of harassment
* The knowledge that harassment is permitted can undermine ethical standards and discipline in the organization in general, as staff and/or students lose respect for, and trust in, their seniors who indulge in, or turn a blind eye to, sexual harassment
* If the problem is ignored, a company’s or school’s image can suffer
* Legal costs if the problem is ignored and complainants take the issue to court.
“Each time the Federal Government gets involved, that’s another step towards Federal takeover of your life! ”
Do you have any idea of how foolish that is? Or do you not recognize that we are a group of states and for the states some laws apply to all?
Are you willing to give states rights of everything to states that are easily bought like Wisconsin? Are you so stuck on this states rights thing that you cant see how easily they can take over your life?
No, Ron Paul is not what you see is what you get. You know very little about Paul except that he mutters states rights and constitution occasionally and you follow without thinking. You have no idea that its far easier for the state to take over your life. And its far easier for the state to mandate your life. Doesnt Rick Scott show you anything? Learn to think for yourself and you will see Ron Paul is very dangerous
“In 2011, all 50 states and territories met in regular session and enacted close to 40,000 new laws on issues across the board. Laws do not always become effective on Jan. 1, however. State constitutions or statutes usually establish when they go into effect, or sometimes, an effective date is written into the specific piece of legislation.”
Theres your state taking over your life.
I was merely pointing out the FACT, the actual EVENT and EVIDENCE of what occurs when you have the sheriff in charge.
The fact proves that an Arizona “local sheriff”, who was voted into office by gerrymandered Teabaggers retirement communities useing fear of the little brown people were coming in hoards across the boarder to kill them in shows how the system has been corrupted.
Joe is going down on so many counts that he will die in prison…in his pink underwear.
Kindly peruse the text of 18 USC from cover to cover. Not only are the common-law felonies cognizable in federal, as well as state, laws; the U. S. Code also covers numerous crimes which by their nature are committed in multiple jurisdictions, contain commonlaw felonies in multiple jurisdictions, or in some cases involve states as perpetrators. Most states either couldn’t or wouldn’t prosecute them properly, and you wouldn’t care to be a victim of any one of them. If you haven’t been, thank the Feds.
I think you have rather a vile mouth, little man, and I hope Barbie soon straightens you out about the right way to conduct a public discourse.
Basically, Paul DOES NOT believe that victims of any or all spectrum have “rights” (if you get sick, it’s your fault, if you’re poor, it’s your fault). And, when “victims” stand together, like the 99%, to define the predator, then there is a need for “rights”…he doesn’t care about the “needs” of victims of predators; he only cares about Number One, which is why he is no friend of America, but a Ayn Rand Puritan.
Barbie!?? Why, that deserves a good song!!
Hi Ken! (Herman, Ron…)
Do you wanna go for a ride?
Sure Ken! (Herman, Ron…)
I’m a barbie girl, in the barbie world
Life in plastic, it’s fantastic!
You can brush my hair, undress me everywhere
Imagination, life is your creation
Come on Barbie, let’s go party!
I’m a blond bimbo girl, in the fantasy world
Dress me up, make it tight, I’m your dolly
You’re my doll, rock’n’roll, feel the glamour in pink, kiss me here, touch me there, hanky panky…”
There’s more but, you know, I didn’t want those who believe that the rights of workers who are illegally harassed should go away…this might provide them too much evidence!
Yeah, what we see is what we get. And what we see is a mean-spirited, misogynist, racist, poor-hating, weak-beating dried up parvicidal Randian turd.
You raise a lot of valid concerns in your rant, mostly about the injustice of having to live with a drug bust over your head. I agree with Paul’s stance decriminalizing marijuana and staying out of most foreign entanglements. But, if you’re talking about the injustices of wealth distribution, Paul isn’t the guy for you. His love affair with corporations and the wealthy and his largesse to them won’t trickle down to the rest of us any more than Reaganomics or the Bush tax cuts did. And his tax plan wouldn’t shrink the deficit one iota unless it also totally destroyed Medicare, Medicaid, public education, intfrastructure construction, the Veteran’s Administration and all it’s hospitals and most of the other safety nets non-billionaires depend on. Which would lose millions of jobs and throw seniors, the disabled and veterans out on the street. His theory of letting only the strong survive is heartless and horrifying. Social Security was first started when good-hearted people got sick of seeing the elderly–the #1 homeless demographic on the Bowery–huddling over grates to keep warm. You may rail against your fate, but they had it so much worse, and if Ron Paul gets his way, medical, social and mental health programs for disabled vets will see them turned away from medical services that they need and probably out on the streets as well. After all, Bush closed down the Head Trauma Center in the VA because he needed to use the funds for more tax breaks. Thankfully, Obama restored it.
The heartlessness of conservatives and libertarians in gauging the good of corporations over that of the people shocks me. Corporations don’t hire people here in the U.S. They hire most of them overseas and most of them don’t pay any taxes now or pennies on the dollar on them so Paul’s plan to drop their tax rate rings hollow.
Plus, libertarians say government will stay out of the personal lives of people. Well, he just signed the Personhood Pledge with 14th Amendment protections. That states that life begins at fertilization and would outlaw most forms of contraception including the Pill, the IUD, the morning after pill, all abortions including those resulting from rape and endangering the life of the mother. Women couldn’t get chemotherapy while pregnant and some personhood fanatics are even arguing against terminating ectopic pregnancies! Paul was an OB/GYN! Even a lay person knows the severe danger of letting an ectopic pregnancy continue. As a former Army nurse, I certainly do. His pandering to the evangelical right on this is sickening and is the ultimate in government control. Nothing else you say compares to the fact that women would no longer have any say to how many children we’d be required to have or support. And if you’re a man and sexually active, that YOU’D have to support.
Pat, ever heard of the military? People there cant quit when they are harassed, cant quit even when they are raped. That is sad that instead of the harasser being punished you had to leave.
Exceptthat he still won’t confirm who DID write them.
I’ve been raped, too and sexually harassed in the workplace and your defense of Paul rings hollow. He was asked about the context of the quote he’d made and rambled on about the federal government vs. the state and local government and about taking offense at lewd jokes.
Not buying it. He stated clearly in his quote, “why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts…how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem?” Basically, he’s also saying that the one being harassed is at fault if he/she stays in the abusive environment. “How can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem?” If you’re being harassed and you don’t quit, you’re encouraging your harasser. Read the quote. It’s not that he doesn’t think that the problem should be handled on the local, state or even federal level; he doesn’t think it should be handled AT ALL! “Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts…how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem?”
Uhh, you’re sure good at not reading. I READ something by him (don’t remember what), and based on that judged him to be a nutcase.
I also know a hell of a lot more about Columbine than you might think… and your comparison doesn’t hold water.
And yes, lawyers do sometimes take cases they cannot win. They’re called criminal cases where the accused is guilty. It happens quite often.
If you had said, “Do lawyers take CONTINGENT FEE cases they cannot win”, you would have made a point.
And, again, he wants to reduce the size of FEDERAL government. As far as I know, he has never claimed – as a representative in the federal government – to have a right to limit what the states do as far as such things.
“could you afford to be fired or quit and be out of work for over a year? Maybe not get unemployment (often happens when you’re fired, especially when you can’t prove that it was unlawful)?”
Ummm… why didn’t they get another job? I was terminated from a pretty lucrative position because I pissed the Judge off by reminding him that he was refusing to comply with the law.
I started my own law practice.
Before I became an attorney, I was working a job and there were cutbacks. I went and got a job delivering pizzas until something better in my field came along. You’d be surprised how much money you can make in tips delivering pizza. Is it sexy? No. Did I want to do it? No. But it’s better than living on welfare (at that time, I made more money in pizza than I could have on unemployment).
Too many people are unwilling to take ANY job in order to pay the rent, etc. . . Further, future employers are more impressed by someone who is willing to work at something that may be “below” them than someone who sits at home collecting an unemployment check.
Nice that you had the option and either the prospect of another good job waiting for you or a husband/family to support you financially. Not everyone is so lucky. And giving the bastard a stiff upper cut isn’t too conducive to the situation either. And Amvet below is correct. As an Army nurse, I’ve seen some horrors in the field that are mind-boggling. The military was great at controlling sexual harassment during peace time. In the war theater, testosterone rules and the higher ups tell us to “man up.” You wouldn’t last a night.
I agree with you, Paul wants the Fed at the same easily bought level as the states are.
Arnt state laws wonderful?
“Not only are the common-law felonies cognizable in federal, as well as state, laws”
And that is unconstitutional in Paul’s view. Again, agree or disagree with his position and interpretation of the constitution, but he’s consistent. The federal government is given authority over only a couple criminal offenses (treason, for instance) in the constitution. Thus, under the 10th amendment reservation of rights to the states, all other criminal laws should be reserved to the states. Frankly, it becomes quite ridiculous when Michael Vick is criminally prosecuted for dog fighting by the feds. I mean, come on – there are state laws about such things.
And you think the federal government laws are efficient? Have you read them? Start with the tax code.
Geez. Quit being so dense.
I know a local attorney who makes a good living prosecuting sexual harassment cases using state law. They’re good cases and the verdicts tend to be large.
“They are federal laws and there is nothing wrong with having federal laws”
Again, there IS something wrong with having federal laws if they are unconstitutional. Paul’s view of that is far more broad than yours.
Agree or disagree with what it says, the 10th Amendment exists and it states that SOME rights are reserved to the states.
Please enlighten us with 3 things you think the federal government should NOT have authority to make laws about.
Given your arguments and positions, I’d guess your answer would be that there aren’t any. Yet, that renders the 10th Amendment meaningless.
If you’d read what the founders wrote about the 10th amendment prior to making it law, I suspect you’d find a rather different view than your own.
Wait until your health collapses, and see how much you like that bastard Ron Paul (or any of the other dominionist and “small government” nutcases). I know the “Tough person working in spite of everything” routine… I was there for a good chunk of my life. It turned out to be stupid. Brain-dead stupid.
You’ve been brainwashed, my friend. You sound like I did many years ago. I learned how wrong I was over 20 years ago, and everything I’ve experienced and learned since then shames me for taking the stances and saying the things I did. The brainwashing made me stupid. I just hope for your sake that you don’t experience any of what I have since I started tearing the programming out of my life. You might not survive. (It’s a miracle I’m alive today, much less functional enough to try to get a life in spite of my many limitations.)
And I warn you not to take my statements lightly. You don’t have a clue. Even as I didn’t. I really do hope for your sake that you don’t have any of the same experiences, a few of which I’ve talked about but not most of them.
“Laws in the workplace do stop harassment”
Really? Is that why there are so many complaints about harassment? Laws don’t stop murder, they don’t stop rape, they don’t stop anything in and of themselves.
It’s no different than gun control laws. You can take away all legal guns from people (i.e. see the U.K.) and yet still have murder and armed robbery. How can this be? Oh, yea – unlawful people don’t pay any attention to the law.
Reasonable people follow a moral code that includes not murdering, raping, sexually harassing, etc. . . and they don’t need a law to stop them from killing or raping someone.
Unreasonable and wicked people do those things regardless of whether there is a law.
There SHOULD be laws with penalties in order to punish evildoers. That doesn’t mean the laws are going to stop them. (And yes, I realize there is a deterrent effect from a law, but even the death penalty is not sufficient to deter some people from committing crimes).
I know a local doc who has been repeatedly accused of and civilly sued for harassment – and has lost. He continues to harass. The law means nothing to him. He makes a lot of money and settles the cases. He has a reputation and women still go to work for him.
You can’t stop a pervert from starting something or keeping it up, no matter how well you’ve “trained” the women in your family. They’re perverts! And how are you going to train them to handle their pervy employer? By kicking his nards in? What if your daughter is a single struggling mother with 3 kids, a mortgage, car payment and a deadbeat ex that hasn’t paid any child support in a year? There aren’t exactly hundreds of jobs out there waiting for her, and the harasser keeps sneaking up behind her to put his hands up her skirt and tell her he’ll demote her if she isn’t nice to him. That’s not a fairy tale. It’s an all too common occurance. Then, if she quits her job and can’t collect unemployment cause she quit, she’ll lose her house, car, etc. But, listen to Ron Paul’s quote, “how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem?” Your wife or daughter was asking for it!
Yes, blame the victim. I love our rape-culture.
Just imagine the number of the complaints would be were there no laws.
“Reasonable people follow a moral code that includes not murdering, raping, sexually harassing, etc.”
that’s why 75% of murders with guns are performed by people who either know the victim, or are related to them
Move along. No laws stop everything but they do serve as deterrents. Taking my statement as laws stopping all harassment simply proves you have an agenda
The whole point of this kind of federal law is to hold sexual harrassers accountable for their obnoxious behavior all over the country. If left to the states, there would be no uniformity of how to deal with this problem. No matter how well a woman is taught to handle herself, that still won’t prevent a harasser from subjecting her or other women to that kind of behavior. As women, my daughter and I, along with other women and even men, have the RIGHT to earn livings without having to be in a hostile working atmosphere created by some moron who is drunk with power and has a sense of entitlement. Ron Paul’s comments about jokes shows that he simply does not get it. There are a lot of things that he does not get, and a Ron Paul presidency would serve as a rude awakening to those who continue to make excuses for him. They would quickly become aware of the absence of protections we all take for granted. Therefore, the fact that he will never become president is actually a blessing in disguise for his followers, not to mention the rest of us.
The constitution was not written for states rights. It was written for states representation.
On laws that effect all the states, the fed has the right to make laws
“Sexual harassment applies to everyone in the US, therefore its federal. That is legislated by congress.”
Please refer me to the section of the constitution that says what you are arguing.
Pretty much everyone agrees that petty theft is “wrong”. Does that make it federal? Should the federal government make a law against it and start prosecuting it?
How about domestic violence? Public intoxication? Disturbing the peace?
You truly do not believe that there is nothing congress should not legislate at the federal level, do you?
You know basically nothing about the original intent of the constitution. Spend about 3 hours reading the federalist papers and the anti-federalist papers and then post again. You won’t look so uninformed and foolish.
And you said, “I like that a lot better than watching the states that are easily bought like Wisconsin, Florida and Michigan do things.”
Come on – you know that both parties at the federal level are regularly bought by lobbyists. The Obama admin is bought and paid for by the banks, just as the Bush admin was by oil corps. You have WAY too much faith in people who happen to hold office at the federal level. They’re usually the very same people who – 10 or 20 years ago – were being bought off at the state level.
Refusing to work is a chestnut. I’ve heard that one many times, and it’s very often leveled at the homeless (plenty of research shows that thinking is based on bigotry, stereotyping, and is flat wrong). I’ve had that one leveled at me… and the idiot who said it knew that my physical limitations precluded working at the places he claimed were hiring. He didn’t care… if you weren’t employed, you were lazy.
As far as being a lawyer, I also know lawyers who claim to be Democrats but scream bloody murder if you even hint at regulating businesses. They don’t blink an eye at raising taxes on the poor or passing things that punish them. Only a few lawyers seem to have souls left… and those work hard for ordinary people and against the corporations (and support stronger regulation).
Libertarian? Ron Paul is no libertarian! A libertarian would never have signed the Personhood Pledge with 14th Amendment Protections that gives full citizenship rights to a fertilized egg, thereby outlawing most forms of contraception including the Pill, the IUD, the morning after pill, all abortions including those that threaten the life of the mother and those caused by rape or incest, and deny chemotherapy during pregnancy. Some fanatics in the Personhood movement even want to do away with terminating ectopic pregnancies, which are always unsalvageable and life-threatening to the mother. A true libertarian would never impose nation-wide birth control prohibition. Paul is nothing more than a fundamentalist, anti-woman dinosaur who needs to pack up his swastikas and dodder on to the nearest nursing home. As nasty tempered as he is, if he ever won the primary, he’d probably be yelling at the commentator during the debates to stay away from his tomatoes.
It doesn’t have to be in the constitution to make something illegal or legislated by the fed.
Sorry, you are trying to put words in my mouth and you are failing.
I have MORE faith in the bought out fed than I do bought out states like Wisconsin, Florida and Michigan
“Here again history proves that state governments are worse at protecting against discrimination than the federal government.”
Absolutely true. If the Feds weren’t breathing down their neck, this county would be discriminating against minorities in a split second. That would be especially true of religious minorities. Some of the states would discriminate if they weren’t being closely scrutinized by the Feds. A good example is South Carolina, whose voter suppression laws are being blocked.
People also ignore the importance of scale. At the federal level, some local powerful bigwig might not even be a blip on the scope, they’d be down in the noise. That way if they discriminate, it’s far more likely that at the federal rather than local/state scale that they would be punished or corrected.
You made good money delivering pizzas? If you’re a single guy living with three other guys helping you pay the rent maybe! As a single mother in the 80s and 90s, I tried my hand at many temp jobs such as trash collecting, being a flag girl at a construction site, pizza delivery, stripping and finally said the hell with it all and joined the Army when they offered to send me to nursing school in exchange for a commission. But, being a single mom and delivering pizzas, even with good tips, sure didn’t pay the rent, day care, utilities, transportation and all my other bills. In fact, some jobs set you back more than they pay you if you’ve got dependents. That’s why I believe in safety net programs like day care assistance and public health and I’m willing to pay the extra taxes for it.
Those in the link seem to be just the recent and IMO, “nicer” sounding laws.
States have sneakers that provide for persecuting innocent people or limiting the freedom of minorities including the poor.
Example – unless it’s been repealed (and I hadn’t heard of it), unless you can hunt a bird in this state, you cannot legally possess any portion of it, including the feathers. Not even a bluejay feather. They use this law to harass us. If our neighborhood hawk lands in my tower (happens nearly every day) and drops a feather, I can go to prison and have a huge fine if I pick it up. Funny, but I’ve seen white people with feathers all the time but they get away with it. I’ve nearly been arrested for having a hawk feather in my possession (father of the deputy, who used to be a friend of mine, got her to let me alone). I know people who paid outrageous fines and even did jail time for possessing feathers – in some cases that they just picked up. One of my elders was threatened because she had some bluejay feathers in a jar – that her grandkids had brought in to her.
Here’s a nice example of a state law (repealed in recent history)… it was unlawful for my tribe to just EXIST in a good portion of Georgia. Any government official in that state (at any level) discovering us in areas where we didn’t have the right to exist were supposed to throw us in prison and make us work at hard labor until we paid our “debt to society” – including women and children. That law was on the books until 1980… well after I’d graduated from High School. They’d return to that law if they could (they were forced to repeal it by the passing of the Federal law granting us freedom of religion – which we didn’t really have until 1979). We also, until it was repealed in 1980, were officially declared not competent to testify in any case involving a white or black person. Nice state level law, isn’t it?
Plus there are the new voter suppression laws, at the state level.
Laws meant to protect big businesses from the consequences of their actions (lawsuits limited).
I could go on and on.
So… let me get this well understood, here. You get your wifi from “The Martin Luther King Center”? “… and I can get wifi from the Martin Luther King Center a half a block away.” The guy you are so gung-ho for calls the holiday named after Martin Luther King ‘Hate Whitey Day’ and a charity group, named after the ‘Hate Whitey Day’ founder, gives their wifi to anybody who is within living distance for free? Regardless of colour, sex, age, sexual orientation, or whatever anybody who can reach that wifi can get it for free?
If there’s sexual (or other kinds of) harassment in a GOVERNMENT office, it’s Katie Bar the Door! because civil rights legislation most emphatically does obtain in such circumstance.
Government officers can’t get way with such trespasses, and that’s a very good thing.
But in the private sector, reliance on regulations designed to protect civil rights is painfully ineffective. There’s better recourse in contract and tort law, and prescriptive regulations only get in the way.
As for Dr. Paul’s “choice of words,” I’d certainly have put it differently.
Dr. Paul’s contentions on sexual harassment are of a piece with his recognition of the true nature of individual human rights.
Except as either implied or explicit contractual obligations figure into the employer-employee relationship, there is no kind of “civil right” regarding sexual (or any other kind of) harassment in the private sector workplace. This means that the officers of civil government have NO LAWFUL AUTHORITY to intervene in any way unless there is a breach of contract in a particular case that requires enforcement.
Remember that civil rights pertain only to the private citizen’s relationship with government agencies and their officers. Civil rights act as a control on government, and don’t pertain to private people otherwise, nonsense about “places of public accommodation” notwithstanding. The “civil rights legislation” mentioned above simply cannot be made to function outside of that government-versus-citizen context, and it’s ruinously destructive to intrude such legislation into the affairs of private persons.
There are measures in law which DO pertain to citizen-with-citizen interactions, including not only contract but also tort law. Dr. Paul’s position has been that federal regulations written to favor one minority group over others have a pernicious impact upon relations best facilitated (and constrained) by laws crafted to preserve REAL rights – individual rights – instead of forcing some kinds of politically correct outcomes which voluntary action does not produce.
An employer who permits management personnel to create a hostile workplace by virtue of sexual (and other forms of) harassment will be obliged to suffer higher labor costs in a number of ways. The most competent potential or actual employees will find other jobs. Those who remain will do so only for added compensation (think of it as “hazard pay”). Beyond that, supervisors and other managers who cannot suppress the impulse to harass are – other things being equal – likely to be lousy performers in other aspects of their work.
If an employer’s objective is to operate in a competitive marketplace, it’s better to discover such harassment proactively, and get those harassing managers out of the house ASAP.
And then there are the tort liabilities. Oh, yes, those ravenous members of the Plaintiff’s Bar. Who needs opaque an vague federal regulations when employees suffering “hostile workplace” conditions without satisfactory compensation can – and will! – seek redress in suits at law?
By the way, you mentioned about having to come up with your own tools. During the fifteen years I was in a legally organized business (I never worked under the table), I purchased people’s junk test equipment and rebuilt it on my own. I put many months worth of time and at the end, had a full computer-driven testing and development system composed of literally many tens of thousands worth of fine equipment. Not quite two years ago, I wrote a letter to the editor supporting evolution and speaking against the teaching of creationism in the schools. My parents were threatened right after it was published (they were also ordered to “SHUT HIM UP!”, and a couple of weeks after that someone torched my workshop. I lost over $50,000 worth of equipment and about another $20,000 of parts that I could use in my experiments, along with 6 projects (inventions) I’d been working on. Total loss, no insurance (couldn’t afford it). If that equipment hadn’t been torched, I could have earned an income over the last year and a half that I was unemployed.
The same sort of “Good Christians” also poisoned several of our kitties over the years, spraypainted racist hate graffiti in front of our driveway, and harass us on a regular and often basis. Reason? Because we openly celebrate our heritage (American Indian), don’t assimilate, and turn down their attempts to convert us.
Also, it’s mentioned you have a drug arrest over your head. The same people we oppose here (Republicans and Dominionists – the ones who torched my shop, poisoned our kitties, and so on) want things to get worse for people who use drugs… and most want alcoholic beverages added to the list of forbidden pleasures. The Democratic Party server I am on supports eliminating the “War on Drugs” and decriminalizing some drugs, such as pot (not the more destructive ones like Heroin). We believe in treating those who have a problem with them, not criminalizing them. In fact, I even remember discussions of eliminating the records of people who have a drug bust hanging over their head!
And while we’re on this subject, why is it that a lot of libertarians who want pot legalized (so they can use it) also generally want all tobacco use banned, even ceremonial use (such as we use it)??? That’s about the most hypocritical thing I know of… and before you start arguing how bad tobacco is (and the canard how harmless marijuana is), I suggest that you look at the difference between cigarette use and pipe use (and I’d also include cigar use). Big difference there… according to the surgeon general’s report (that I researched and read), pipe smokers who don’t inhale live 10% longer than NON-SMOKERS, and those who do inhale don’t have a statistically different chance of dying from cancer. That report was, I believe, put out by Koop and clearly shows how dangerous cigarettes are.
The thing is, Ron Paul has clearly been connected to the dominionists and is a stealth dominionist candidate. He may say one thing to get votes and support, but if he gets into the presidency, you will be painfully surprised at how things really turn out. The people running the dominionist churches don’t like drugs (or anything that brings enjoyment) and it will only become worse, not better.
Thanks for pointing that out Ian. It is true and sadly this is the purpose of not only Fox News but CNN as well. Chris Matthews does not like Ron Paul and I find it unfair and biased that he even be allowed to interview anyone as a spokesperson for any network.
I started a petition to have him removed from Fox for his participation in the last republican debate. That can be found here:
A time has to come where we can think for ourselves, instead of following puppets throwing up misconstrued words to benefit their own personal agenda. These people or sheeple are so sadly mislead into believing such nonsense.
I hope for the sake of America, that people start LISTENING to the message rather than listening to the person who interprets it because Americans are too lazy to think for themselves. So let Chris Matthews do it for them.. Insanity!
And if you think the state will persecute rich people when they harm the poor, or in this case, dogs… don’t buy any bridges.
The smaller the scale, the more powerful the rich and the less likely that the poor/disadvantaged/helpless will get justice. (Big fish in small pond applies).
I also suggest that you read some other posts about the real problem with state and local ordinances.
The government has every right to involve itself. Civil rights do NOT only pertain to your relationship with the government
Ron Paul is saying that we do not need a federal law to handle the situation. States could manage this just as well on their own. In some most cases, I believe, people would be charged fairly if it meant having to file a claim with the police. Is an employee going to call the cops because someone in the office told a penis joke? No, they will not and this type of situation also should not be premise to file within a company. The same with the trend of insurance fraud in the 80’s and 90’s. When a program is taken advantage of and exploited as it, people slowly stop taking it seriously and need a great deal of evidence to prove a claim. Sexual Harassment will happen regardless of the fed being invloved and some claims will be taken serious while others are not so why should we waste money and time hiring the FED to solve every tiny problem that we encounter? I am a woman, and I can tell you this much; regardless of the federal laws an entry level assistant wouldn’t successfully file a charge against the CEO and get away with it. That’s the world we live in, you had best start living in reality because issues like this might as well be cover ups to issues that hold great importance to the future of the United States. I would rather not live on a prison planet but obviously others like the government policing every single move they make. It seems like forums like this show clear evidence that Americans welcome dictatorships into their lives.
It’s sad how people are commenting and haven’t even watched to video. Read the headline and REACT! It’s a sick sad world we live in when anyone listens to Chris Matthews for any purpose aside from comedy.
Have him removed from Fox News for reporting to the American people with such biased:
Let me guess the government also has the right to:
Declare America a battleground and detain its own non terroristic citizens
Come into your house without a search warrant
Seize assets via the IRS
Threaten to Take your children for not vaccinating them with poison in the name of health (while Americans health is significantly lower than other countries who vaccinate 1/3 as much as US)
Detain any citizen indefinitely for any beligernet act
Listen to your phone calls
Gather and keep information about citizens for unlawful reason
Deny citizens the right to peacefully protest
I could go on but obviously you have your mind made up about welcoming the government into every aspect of your life. While you open your door some true Americans out there just want to be left alone to live their lives.
Wow. I know I really missed that point, and it’s a good one.
You’re right on the money. He IS saying that if you don’t leave as soon as it starts, you’re bringing it on yourself.
(And that goes back to our argument that most people can’t up and leave their job without risking destitution and homelessness.)
RACIST Ron Paul wants to destroy the Federal government bit, by bit, until it no longer exists! Paul doesn’t seek peace and freedom for YOU, he seeks it for the WEALTHY, and the KOCHS in particular! Ron Paul doesn’t think poor people deserve an education too! If you are POOR in a Ron Paul world, don’t count on ANY HELP FROM THE FEDERAL GOV’T! If you aren’t rich enough to pay for his entirely PRIVATIZED COUNTRY, you are SUNK! If people would wake up and smell the TEA BAG, they’d realize that Paul is the front man for Tea Party creators the Koch Brothers, who are from the NAZI family of the same name! They want to deregulate, and destroy the government and its offices, so they can have freedom to pollute us into a cancerous oblivion, and have no interference with them from making all the money they want, at our expense! They also feel that CIVIL RIGHTS are an INFRINGEMENT on FREEDOM! Paul is like a spoiled child who doesn’t want anyone to tell him what to do! LAWLESSNESS, AND HATE WOULD BE THE WAY OF THE LAND! WHO CARES IF HIS FREEDOMS, TAKE AWAY OUR FREEDOMS? HE HAS THE MONEY TO SQUASH YOUR FREEDOMS! THEY WOULD ELIMINATE FAIR WAGES, WORKING CONDITIONS, SO THEY CAN MAKE MORE MONEY! SCREW YOU, IF IT STARVES YOU!IF YOU ARE NOT WEALTHY, SO YOU ARE A NOBODY! Rand Paul is the Koch’s man in their Tea Bagger party, and his dad is working from the Republican/Libertarian angle. The Koch’s with their pimp Norquist, will have the GOP/Republicans and all their offshoots, pledging away their freedom to vote on bills in any way they choose. That is why we have had such terrible stagnation in the government! If you check the voting records, the Koch Bros. Republican/Bagger party ALWAYS votes DOWN ANYTHING that could benefit the American people! THEY EVEN VOTED DOWN HELP FOR OUR 9/11 HEROES TO GET TAX EXEMPT STATUS FOR OUTSOURCED COMPANIES, BRINGING IN NO REVENUE FOR THE US! TOM COLBURN WAS SET TO FILIBUSTER, UNTIL THE SOME OF THE DYING HEROES STORMED HIS OFFICE AND SHAMED HIM ON CAMERA! During the Clinton administration, we still had social programs for our poor, elderly, disabled, etc; he created more jobs than in 20 years of Republican presidents, and there was NO DEFICIT! CLINTON HANDED BUSH A SURPLUS, WHICH HE PROMPTLY USED UP, AND THEN SOME! ALSO, WHERE IS THE UP TO 19 BILLION DOLLARS IN CASH THAT BUSH/CHENEY SENT TO IRAQ, THAT JUST DISAPPEARED? IS THAT IN A SWISS BANK ACCOUNT? We need to STOP listening to these TRAITOR Republican/Libertarian/Baggers, who say we have wasteful government spending, because the only WASTE IN GOVERNMENT SPENDING IS GIVING PAYCHECKS TO THE DO NOTHING, OBSTRUCTIONIST REPUBLICANS AND THEIR OFFSHOOTS! LET THEIR MASTERS, THE KOCHS PAY THEM, BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL PORK! MAKE UP FOR 2010, AND DUMP THE INCUMBENT REPUBLICANS (ESPECIALLY, BOEHNER AND CANTOR)! Get the House BACK IN ORDER, and ELECT DEMOCRATS IN 2012!
Puhleeze! The weasel Paul had a weasel offspring who lied his way into office in Kentucky! This father and son of weasel-dom have proven the gross failure of the electorate to adequately research who they vote for. Is Ron Paul’s finger up his nose? Is that his way of thwarting his scheduled Rectal Encephalo-ectomy? Rand Paul, the bigot TEA party-er from Kentucky, wants his bigoted father from Texas to be surging now. These two have failed scrutiny in race relations and truthfulness across the board. Rand gain office on the promise of jobs in America and has failed miserably. Every TEA-GOP-Repubican have failed the American people miserably in jobs production as they promised in 2010. All the sugar-coating cannot change the reality that you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. These two both are pigs at the government’s trough. They follow Eric Cantor and the Terrifying Errant Activist(TEA) party’s attempt to subvert America. Civility is still elusive when Paul Ryan and the Toxic Egotistical Activist(TEA) party hold hands with the like of Eric Cantor. America’s ideologic spread has widened given the inflexibility of the Taxation Eradication Activists(TEA) party and their mentor who covets the Speaker-ship in the House. Cantor’s antics have taken the current 112th Congress down to 9% (dis)approval rating. He doesn’t understand the general public’s needs, wants or requirements, let alone how the Congress is supposed to work. His total function is to protect the top elite 1% and casts cooperation rather than compromise in his quest for deficit reduction.
Whats sad is people who think sexual harassment is just a penis joke.
Even sadder is the thought of the Koch, who own Wisconsin writing a sexual harassment law. For the good old boys
Nop one turns to the fed, its just a federal law carried out by the states.
“A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for sexual harassment.”
What an incredibly infantile statement. Everyone knows that ‘sexual harassment’ is nothing more than a way for females to file frivolous lawsuits for big cash settlements – attorneys are big fans as well. Most of the time it’s either a false accusation or highly exaggerated. And once you’ve been accused it’s difficult to disprove. Anything can be sexual harassment and the laws are vague deliberately in their definitions and so broad whereas to enable women to either exact revenge for being fired for poor work performance or for profit.
A lot of people don’t even stop to realize that a huge reason so many companies have left the country to operate in 3rd world countries is because of the constant threat of these lawsuits- it’s insane. We can’t even just concentrate on work in a mixed environment because we have to constantly be on edge and on guard with the constant threat of sexual harassment or even ‘sexual assault’ which as defined by the CDC can be virtually anything including a ‘look.’ Just anything that makes a woman ‘uncomfortable.’ Jesus christ, imagine any other laws where there would be no clear definition – like theft- someone wouldn’t actually have to steal anything- they could just be accused of stealing because someone was of the opinion they were a thief.
LOL what a psychotic nightmare Feminism and the whole rotting cancer of all of it’s Orwellian sickness it has wrought. To be honest, as a male I am far FAR more frightened by women in the workplace than they could ever be of me- not because they’re brilliant or I’m ‘intimidated’ ad nauseum, no because they’re nothing but a huge liability and a walking lawsuit.
The best advice you could give any man is to not even so much as look at women you work with- don’t even make eye contact and certainly never speak to them unless you absolutely have to.
Way to go Rudy Gonzales! You NAILED IT!
“Everyone knows that ‘sexual harassment’ is nothing more than a way for females to file frivolous lawsuits for big cash settlements”
Hilarious! Is this you Ron or is it Rand?
The best advice I could give to you is to grow up.
just be glad woman can vote they can barely drive
tehe yes i went there…
It’s rare to encounter someone who uses the “everyone knows” argument. That is so fallacious that it surprises me to encounter it here, plus it is almost always the argument used by a bigot and reinforces false stereotypes. In the last decade or so, the only people I’ve heard use that were racist bigots who tried to argue for false stereotypes about minorities (and anti-gay homophobes who refused to accept that LGBT people were human too).
Your argument suggests to me that nobody close to you has ever experienced sexual harassment. In fact, I suspect you might have been guilty of it or considered doing it.
OH, and I have known a couple of companies owned by decent people (surprise surprise!). They have no problems with sexual harassment nor do they fear lawsuits because of the same… because they treat women with respect, as equals.
Somebody please enlighten me. Why does every infraction of the law have to be handled at the Federal level? If harassment takes place at the state level, aren’t the states properly endorsed to handle the issue?
A smaller sized government does not mean abandoning our ethics and values. We need to state these values and stand by them. Harassment towards anyone in the work place should not be tolerated or condoned. Ron Paul, are you listening? Pushing for the idea of a smaller government does not give you permission to abandon these values.
Uh… laws protect freedom, and with some exceptions (usually at the state or local level), the only thing they limit is harming another in one way or another.
Read Frank Shaeffer’s writings about the starting of the Religious Right. It started because the bigots wanted the “right” to discriminate against minorities, and didn’t like the civil rights legislation that was passed because it blocked them from exercising their “right” to persecute African Americans and others.
Don’t be fooled by the Ron Paul HYPE! HE IS ALL LIES! He is a nasty, old racist curmudgeon who is just helping the Nazi Kochs try and get an even bigger foothold in the American government! The Koch’s Tea Party and the Koch’s pimp, Grover Norquist, with his pledges the Right has been forced to sign, has effectively brought the federal government to a standstill, and caused the country to fail to improve, AFTER THE DISASTROUS BUSH/CHENEY REGIME! The Right said they wanted Pres. Obama to FAIL, and they have ALSO made the US FAIL at the SAME TIME! THE REPUBLICANS/TEA BAGGERS/LIBERTARIANS HAVE TAKEN THIS COUNTRY AND TURNED IT INTO A WASTELAND! PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS BEEN FIGHTING TOOTH AND NAIL TO DEAL WITH THEM, BUT TRYING TO DEAL WITH SUCH A DESTRUCTIVE FORCE IS LIKE TRYING TO REASON WITH PIRANHA! VOTE OUT REPUBLICANS AND BLUE DOGS!
But who will protect your rights and your person? Small government means less protection – and if anyone thinks that a business can be trusted (without strict and close regulation), I would advise them to not buy bridges. If they think that “stating these values and stand by them” will protect them… think again. Some rapists (and harassers) consider “No” to be a turn-on and really meaning “Yes – abuse me!” Con artists consider “No” to be a challenge and not a rejection.
The government isn’t the problem, it’s greed and the 1%. Regulation is the answer.
Oh, and Ron Paul is a dominionist. He never had those values in the first place.
He said there shouldn’t be *federal* laws against harassment, not that there should be none at all. Claiming that he thinks it “shouldn’t be illegal” is libelous yellow journalism. The federal government’s specific purpose is to regulate “interstate commerce”. So one could argue that most cases of harassment aren’t even in the fed’s jurisdiction in the first place.
“regulate “interstate commerce”” ?
Really? what about taxes? One of the primary reasons the constitution was written?
Thats it? regulate “interstate commerce”?
States currently may have statutes which were written to track the federal law, and in such case, there is concurrent jurisdiction. No state had such laws on the books before the United States enacted the federal statute. The United States: my country and presumably yours, which protects our rights via its many Constitutional guarantees as applicable through, inter alia, the Supremacy Clause, the Commerce Clause, and the Fourteenth Amendment. Which star do you renounce, which stripe, and what color of the flag?
I could not agree with you more, CANcan!
I’ve known Ron Paul since childhood, my parents loved him – professionally and personally. I know he’s taken out of context now that he’s in the eye of mainstream media. The others in that group of politicians now cannot ignore him. The PEOPLE are paying attention! So, for all … don’t listen to talking heads and the biased, slanted OPINIONS, like this piece by Matthews, but instead listen to the man directly .. you CAN, you know. Or better yet, contact his office and ask for reading materials from HIS office. The better informed you are, the better vote you can make. Simple. Spend a few hours daily getting to know your government and NOT via talking heads on tv or radio shows. Read things online from YOUR state, YOUR district, YOUR home town .. it’s there. JUST READ IT. Have questions? Get 10 answers from different sources and then, you can put the Truth together! If you STILL don’t get it, contact me! I will point you to the right sources, and by “right” I mean the sources from the government itself. NOT a politician’s page, NOT a talking head’s page, NOT your cousin’s best friend’s wife’s page!
Happy New Year – may 2012 see the USA with employment, more accessible healthcare, lowered difference in wealth disparity, the end of corporate personhead and the end of the FED while we’re at it! Got a lot to do for a new President and I believe Ron Paul IS the man of the PEOPLE …. not the fatcats who got what they have by robbing me and you in a rigged system.
It’s so sad when they come here so puffed up with their misunderstandings and then someone sets them straight and we never hear from them again. It’s as if they don’t really care about the issue at all.
‘Scuse me, you say Chris Matthews was mean to Mr. Paul, so you’re passing a petition to remove Chris Wallace? It fits.
My cats may get me sent to jail many times over, then.
Funny Paul spends a lot of time protecting the fat cats
Walkaway, I was one of those lawyers who worked for ordinary people, and I lost my ticket because I couldn’t pay the endless fees demanded by the Florida Bar. They talk endlessly about providing equal access to justice, and relentlessly punish those who actually try it.
Thatis the most dipfucking shit interpretation of the Constitution and federal jurisprudence I have seen in a long time, though I doubt not I shall shortly see a worse. That shrivelled little Rumplestiltskin with a brain to match can think that if he wants to, and he can think the earth is flat and the sun goes around it if he wants to do that, but whoever is willing to swallow that crap should apply for work as a public toilet.
In my experience, you are actually lying through your bouzouki (a round- bottomed instrument Greeks like to play on)
You are exhibiting a deliberately selective stupidity. Go play with your bouzouki.
See here, tikva, the states never would or did act on such matters untill the United States Congress, the congress of what you claim to be *your country*, did it. Why do you bother to proclaim yourself to be a real, or any, American? You’re a bunch of damned Secessionists, as far as I can see, with no concern for either your fellow countrymen or (especially) countrywomen or the public commonweal. In Rio de Janeiro, they call a chamber pot a”paulista”. Go back and cavort with your fellow Paulistas, please.
Being responsible for oneself and knowing how to protect oneself in a bad situation is entirely different than being in the situation. If you haven’t been there, you don’t know what its like. Further, even if you do know how to protect yourself, that doesn’t mean you should have to put up with harassment. And, um…people forget…women harass men too. Would the same thing be said if it was a man being harassed? Doubt it. There is a wide gap between telling an insulting joke and rape. I simply reiterate my original statement – if you haven’t been in that situation, you don’t know how you would react.
An employee who is not represented by a strong union is seldom in a position to either negotiate or enforce a favorable contract, and until an actual battery occurs, such cases lie outside the scope of commonlaw torts. Tort suits do occur…on *statutory* grounds. Only the prospect of Johnson factors induce most of the lawyers who even take such cases to do so. Without public enforcement, an employee is essentially defenseless.
(Laugh!) ours too…
I’ve heard of that happening, but you’re the first that I’ve heard that it happened to. According to a friend of mine, the Florida Bar make it hard for lawyers who help ordinary people by having the fees so high that you have to collect a lot just to keep them happy! (He wasn’t a lawyer, but I gather worked with some.)
If that’s the case, you’ve confirmed something I was told about the Florida legal system (which let me down big time many times)… it’s set up to make life harder on the little guy.
And the situation with Ellenbeth Wachs? I used to have “Good Christian” retired lawyers giving me cards with Esq. on them… and even giving free ‘legal advice’ to people in the church (including myself)… and they weren’t part of the Florida bar – and were publicly doing that for years. Go figure.
By the way, I used to have a business that serviced manufacturers. I was present in several when they closed down to ship the jobs out.
In one case, that I will never forget, the owner came out and told his employees they’d lost their jobs and he was shipping the equipment to Mexico. His words were (quote) “Why should I pay you jerks $12 an hour when I can pay someone $5 a day to do the same work?” He gave them their last paycheck and that was it. He closed his doors after they left (and didn’t pay his bill either).
That was a fairly common story in the late 80s and early 90s. I had a lot of problem with the owners who did this… they also liked to not pay their bills for the work I did in the shops they closed. It got so that if there was even a hint of outsourcing, I avoided them.
Not one closed because of the threat of lawsuits (they laughed at lawsuits – and I eventually found out why). They closed so as to get cheaper labor… but charged the same price for the same work. So it was all to put more money in their pockets rather than to be competitive (the reality of outsourcing).
The reason why they laughed at lawsuits – they had some sort of insurance that covered lawsuits and the legal system made it hard to go after them. OH, and in fifteen years of business, I never heard of a single lawsuit regarding sexual harassment. I did hear of a LOT of lawsuits when people would have work done and then not pay. It was tough getting your money out of those bastards… they set things up so that it might cost you far more to recover your money than you made. Even some of the “better” businesses were difficult.
There were better businesses… even a handful that I consider today to be fairly honest. Most of the “better” businesses, however, dropped me as a supplier (often with insults) over a month’s time when they learned I was part American Indian.
vaccinations? REALLY? Well, I’ve heard that nutcase thinking before. It’s based on ignorance of science.
It’s also based on ignorance of how bad it was before vaccinations. I remember Mumps, Measles, Chicken Pox… and how worried my parents were. I also know how bad TB used to be. Ditto for Polio.
My personal opinion is anyone who doesn’t have a valid medical reason for not having their children vaccinated… and refuse to do so, should be put in prison. They are putting their ideology (which is all it is) before their children.
If by “Denying citizens the right to peacefully protest”, you mean the Occupy movement and the abuse they’ve been suffering… it’s not the Federal government that has been doing it. It’s been the cities and states. The very thing the “Libertarians” and Ron Paul’s supporters think will be so great in taking over for the Feds.
Oh, by the way… it took a Federal Law to finally give us freedom of religion. It was against the law for my people to practice our religion until we were specifically granted it under President Carter. I’ve met people who did jail time for practicing our religion. Having the Fed come in gave us a freedom YOU have enjoyed all along.
These articles are constantly misinterpreting and twisting his words. He has never indicated it should be ‘legal’, merely that federal legislation should not be employed nor required. Part of his libertarian beliefs are that, as dictated by the constitution, certain priorities and repsonsibilities fall to the states, and others fall to the federal government. The Federal government, as strictly defined by the original constituion is in charge of printing money, foreign affairs, and regulating interstate commerce. Changes in the world and society have of course necessitated expansion of some of the Federal roles, but his point in these statements is that in an ideal situation the workplace environment wouldn’t tolerate such actions, and the fear of an employee leaving over it should encourage the employer to have a strict policy against it, but federal resources should not be wasted enforcing laws related to such matters.
yeah lets leave it to the koch to write Wisconsin’s harassment laws.
There is nothing in the constitution that says the fed cannot write sexual harassment laws.
No federal resources are wasted as it is a federal law enforced and carried out by the states. We have seen how the free market would fear an employee leaving right? In fact most of us would never leave self regulating to any corporation
The episode in 2010 with the contaminated eggs from an Iowa farm that sickened people across the country, as well as the BP incident, should be instructive for showing what can happen with too few or no regulations to hold businesses accountable. Ron Paul’s similarities with the rest of the fools running for the GOP nomination greatly exceed his differences, especially when it comes to things like regulations. Like the rest of them, he also seems to have an unwarranted faith in unfettered free markets. His idea of each states having their own laws on things like clean air & water, education, etc., would result in much grosser inequities than the already existing ones. There are states in which governors would trivialize or discount the destructive effects of sexual harassment on the work environment and therefore productivity. That’s the kind of world Ron Paul’s ideology would bring about, and in that respect he differs very little from his competitors in the nomination process.
The Constitution was written to that government would be a servant to the states, not the other way around. Amendments have changed a great deal of the original purpose which was to be an overseer for the protection of life and property. PERIOD. Then came interstate commerce, then came … LOTS and LOTS more. TOO much more. We’re so bogged down now with federal laws, that even state governments are ignoring many! Time to reboot and perhaps, just start over, clean slate. Tabula rosa. The fatcats who’ve ruined it for all of us need to either resign, be recalled or … the People will eventually revolt. Never think for a moment that because this is “America” that we are beyond such things. We STARTED with one, remember?
SHIVA .. you got a thing for this Koch … your beef is with Koch, not Paul, not even this entire subject.
Never leave self regulating to any corporation? HELLOOOO … that’s one reason why we’re in the shape we’re in! THEY HAVE and THEY DO! Corporte personhood ring ANY bells? Saw your site, SHIVA … some very good info, some very bad info. About the norm for auto-didactics. S far as the “war is over” per the speech on Dec 15th … with boots on the ground, and bombing still happening, I’d say it’s definitely NOT over. Bush said it was over too once. Remember?
Obama won’t prosecute CIA torturers, Wall Street crooks, other corporate criminals, lawless war profiteers, or other venal high-level civilian or government officials.
Instead, expect him to sign into law (or at least tacitly approve) indefinite military detentions of US citizens allegedly associated with terrorist groups, with or without corroborating evidence, which is EXACTLY what he has done!
Resign. Recall. Revolt. Don’t think it cannot happen here. It has before. It’s how we began. It can happen again, and we do have the legal right to remove a tyrannical and corrupt government by force if necessary. FACTOID. It’s NOT treason, it’s REASON.
…”The best advice you could give any man is to not even so much as look at women you work with- don’t even make eye contact and certainly never speak to them unless you absolutely have to…”
Well, if it isn’t the reincarnation of “Spanky”, great president of the “He-Man-Women-Haters-Club”…or are you one of those ultra-orthodox chicken rabbi from Beit Shemesh who force women to sit in the back of the bus or call them whores for not covering their neck in public…whatever you are, calling women “psychotic nightmares” for working in the business world is not just projection on your part, but a cry for help. Tell us where you work so we can notify your HR department to have a little talk with you before you hurt someone…
Apparently, you disconnect when facts are presented…
I won’t bother to explain my statement further as you do not consider anyone but yourself and “expert” with first hand knowledge of a person you have an emotional connection and bias toward…that certainly makes you a real expert on the facts/evidence/events where Paul has associated himself, yet you deny his connection to the under-ground of corruption…like Koch’s, or The Klan.
You attempt to carefully distance and disconnect yourself while circling the wagons for personal belief, not facts.
Poor you…caught up worshiping a political cult leader of ill-repute who is “on the take” just like Nixon was with the mob…poor you.
Reality is, Ron Paul is not only anti-American but anti-Semitic and anti-humanity. His core followers also tend to be the most vile of individuals and conspiracy theorists including such radical and fanatics as the Nazi Stormfronters, the 9/11 truthers, the Islamic terrorists and their supporters, the Libertarian advocates of child molestation and hard drug legalization, and other enemies of western civilization. I personally hope he wins Iowa so the media finally starts to focus on his fringe and wacky conspiracies, positions, and fanatical ideas and beliefs.
The fact is that Ron Paul was one of two congresspersons to vote against funding for malaria immunization and prevention in Africa which saves millions of lives a year is also “wise”. Away from the vital humanitarian concerns (as we are a hope and beacon for liberty, freedom, and human rights) imagine the void that this would create in which Islamicists would quickly fill without avoiding an eyeblink. And then, Islamicists would control and run a new terror haven called AFRICA.
I urge people to watch this short video clip with Ron Paul answering a question on “why won’t he come out on the truth about 9/11”. It is astonishing and it makes a rational observer conclude that Ron Paul indeed is a truther. Watch for yourselves: http://youtu.be/3u0tgNUfOL8
A 15 sec, shoddy video clip, taken out of context does not lead any rational observer to any conclusions. Nothing is astonishing about that video. 0/10.
Sounds to me like hes saying someone shouldnt get an MMS for a penis joke at work.
I believe the writer of this spot should go back and re-read the comments that were made on the report. I am not a specific Ron Paul fan, However, from what I read,
Ron Paul said nothing about taking away civil rights. What he simply said was, the laws are way to touchy on just items such as jokes, which people do not have to listen too, and that the laws stated were actually repeat9ing laws already in effect. If there is an advance on people of the opposite sex, gender, however you like, that is physical, they have a right to object. If it is a forceful move, or violent, it is already against the law in the state itself. More than likely, also in the city the work place is in. When you get too many laws, overlapping, they confuse the issue. It simply takes a report to the proper authorities for law enforcement. As long as people allow someone to harass them, especially women, then they are looking for it. Look as these things in a logical manner. I would not work for anyone who harassed me, even after once or twice. So, why hang around somewhere that has this type profile? Do the women actually like it, if they get something from it? Or, why would they put up with it?
“As long as people allow someone to harass them, especially women, then they are looking for it.”
I hope you don’t post that where there are a lot of women. Thats horrendously ignorant.
Russ, I suggest you stay away from women the rest of your life
This is a ridiculously hyperbolic assessment of Paul’s position. I am a gay white man who has an often raunchy sense of humour but am not myself a mysoginist, racist, or creep. Many of these issues can be circumstancial and intent is key. People who are way too easily offended are idiots and probably assholes. I’m not a huge fan of Paul, but I am a huge fan of being realistic and thinking about what he MEANS when he says something, not exaggerating his or anyone’s position to this farcical conclusion.
Key word: “Federal”. States already have laws in place prohibiting sexual harassment. There’s no reason for the Fed to be in the same business.
Wow, talk about taking things out of context, this is a perfect example. Is this site owned by FOX news by any chance ? What he said was, “But because people are insulted by, you know, rude behavior, I don’t think we should make a federal case out of it. I don’t think we need federal laws to deal with that and people should deal with that at home”. How does that get turned into Civil rights ?
I would not work for anyone who harassed me, even after once or twice.
I take it you either are extremely secure in your ability to find alternate employment immediately, or somehow do not require employment to live.
If you have to ask that question you will never understand the answer.
Well then. If Paul feels there should be no law to protect victims, give a ton of harassment day in/day out.
Maybe if all he hears is derogatory sexual harassment references to himself/family non-stop, maybe he will start feeling otherwise.
Give ’em hell!
So words don’t count for sexual harassment. So when your master instruct to bend over the desk and drop your draws and take one to keep your job, that’s OK, after all it is only words.
So what if you get fired the next day, under Libertarian rule masters ‘er’ employers have the right to fire servants ‘er’ employees for any reason they choose, so in this case simply performance failure is OK, whether it is you or your children.
After all it’s not rape when they agree to keep their job, health benefits and make house payments.
It all makes sense when a company receives funds via federal grants and contracts, as in construction companies, auto dealerships,law enforcement, local government, medical, etc.
Robert – You sound ridiculous. It’s people like you who muddy up actual adult discussion with nonsense. “…Take one to keep your job.” What are you even talking about? You make it sound like we all work in brothels under the whips of ruthless pimps.
Paul’s message is simple. If you are under attack in the work place, call the police. If you are sensitive to jokes, walk away. I have the two legs and the personal agency to live my life the way I see fit.
Get a grip.
and you also have no idea what sexual harassment is. Paul’s message is simple all right but unfortunately unworkable. I am sorry if you are against sexual harassment laws. But if I was a woman I certainly wouldn’t want a policeman deciding whether or not I was being sexually harassed. And I certainly wouldn’t want you for a lawyer
Comments are closed.