hblask 1 Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 LOL. I'm not sure you know what harass means. If you ask out an employee on a date in a normal fashion, you cannot be sued for sexual harassment. Be more willfully ridiculous. Major sexual harassment in the workplace lawsuits occur from repeatedly repugnant behavior, unwanted PHYSICAL contact, and forced sexual favors in return for keeping a job or a promotion. If your employer asks you out on a date in a normal manner and you sue him, the EEOC will deny your claim and the world moves on. If you ask an employee out on a date and then fire her if she refuses, that's harassment.If you hire a woman and then pinch her butt, that's harassment. If a woman comes to your house and you pinch her butt, she can sue you for assault and battery. There's no right being removed; there is no right to harass people.Don't worry this is all a secret compliment on your ability to stand up for the rights of butt pinchers and scoundrels.So, if your explanation is accurate about what happens at my house -- and I don't think it is -- why would we need to create a separate category of law for the workplace that encourages frivolous lawsuits? Why not just use the same laws as for home?Answer: if I grope a woman at my home, I will not be arrested. She will leave and that will be the end of it. If I follow her to her off my property, then I will be arrested. In your opinion, could an employer make a condition of work "putting up with my clumsy advances in whatever form they may be"? Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 So, if your explanation is accurate about what happens at my house -- and I don't think it is -- why would we need to create a separate category of law for the workplace that encourages frivolous lawsuits? Answer: if I grope a woman at my home, I will not be arrested. She will leave and that will be the end of it. If I follow her to her off my property, then I will be arrested. In your opinion, could an employer make a condition of work "putting up with my clumsy advances in whatever form they may be"?Why does it encourage frivolous lawsuits? it's obviously bc there is an added component of leverage in the workplace. It's no different than a landlord threatening to make up a reason to evict a woman if she won't have sex with him. That's why we have special landlord tenant laws; the circumstances are slightly different than other situations. I almost feel like I'm being leveled.If you grope a woman at work, you won't be arrested. You could be sued. If you grope a woman at home, you can't be arrested. She absolutely could sue you though. I think your problem is that you think awareness of workplace harassment laws outstrips awareness of regular law or something. I don't think you understand assault and battery standards at all. If you repeatedly ask out an employee without taking no for an answer, that is probably harassment. If you repeatedly ask out a random woman without taking no for an answer, she can get a restraining order against you.And, no, an employer cannot make that a condition of work. Just like a woman outside the work place is not required to put up with ANY form of clumsy advances in perpetuity.By the way, if you think my explanation of your rights at your house is inaccurate, start touching all your female guests inappropriately and see how that goes. If you never get sued for any reason, that makes you lucky that those women don't know their rights. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted January 1, 2012 Share Posted January 1, 2012 OK, in response to this discussion, I've changed my position a bit:The laws in this area should be consistent between work and non-work. Physical assault should be illegal no matter what, and there is no need for special laws in that area.Here's what I could live with: the default condition for employment is "putting up with come ons from the boss is not a condition of employment", as long as those terms can be overridden voluntarily by contract. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Hey, look, a guy said some obvious things and was right and some less obvious things and was wrong. Cool. Link to post Share on other sites
BaseJester 1 Posted January 8, 2012 Author Share Posted January 8, 2012 Hey, look, a guy said some obvious things and was right and some less obvious things and was wrong. Cool.What do you think is wrong? Inflation & interest rates? Link to post Share on other sites
BillyPilgrim 1 Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Answer: if I grope a woman at my home, I will not be arrested. She will leave and that will be the end of it.good to know. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Hey, look, a guy said some obvious things and was right and some less obvious things and was wrong. Cool.Those things were so obvious that he was the only member of Congress saying them as he was routinely shot down. So apparently they weren't so obvious to the other 537. Or the MSM. Yep, pretty obvious. Link to post Share on other sites
BaseJester 1 Posted January 8, 2012 Author Share Posted January 8, 2012 Those things were so obvious that he was the only member of Congress saying them as he was routinely shot down. So apparently they weren't so obvious to the other 537. Or the MSM. Yep, pretty obvious.I think they could be obvious facts but saying them out loud is still significant. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 I think they could be obvious facts but saying them out loud is still significant.I think the most important thing is voting for or against those facts.If the facts are obvious and the other 537 don't know them, then they are not fit to serve.If the facts are obvious and they DO know them, then voting for policies that are so harmful for the US makes them unfit for office and is borderline treasonous. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 What do you think is wrong? Inflation & interest rates?That, and Iraq being the biggest war since WW2 with different countries joining to claim the land and take sides, or whatever he said.What did he predict that wasn't obvious? Link to post Share on other sites
mk 11 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 I was laughing hard already, but when the fucking SERIOUSCAT Batman music faded in I TOTALLY FUCKING LOST IT. RON PAUL IS BATMAN!!! HE IS THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN SAVE US!!!!!It's hard to say who's worse:1. Ron Paul with his sanctimonious belief that he alone has some unimpeachable crystal ball (despite being wrong about almost everything almost all the time for 40 years straight, except when one of his predictions, like LLY mentioned, is painfully obvious) or 2. his moronic supporters, who think because he makes endless 'predictions', some of which (by default must) turn out to be at least vaguely accurate, he is fucking BATMAN or Nostradamus or something.It's hysterical. This video is one of the funniest things I've ever seen on youtube. Thanks for posting. Link to post Share on other sites
mrdannyg 274 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Have you ever seen Ron Paul and Batman at the same place and time? Link to post Share on other sites
BigDMcGee 3,352 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 The fallacy in this reasoning is glaring. The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama — himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested.Greenwald sets up a giant strawman for that article, and that is the idea that Progressives support Obama. Liberals unquestionably do, but progressives? Some of them may have indeed voted for Obama, but I'm positive it was done in a pragmatic "less of two evils" sense, than a genuine belief that Obama represented true progressive change. And, if they did think that in 2008, they certainly don't now. For example, if you turn on Democracy Now, you won't hear a broadcast full of Obama rah-rahing. You'll hear many stories highly critical of US foreign and Domestic policy. Chomsky has done nothing but blast Obama and maintain that there's no substantive difference between Democratic and Republican foreign and domestic policies. Maybe the concept of what a liberal is has shifted so far to the right, that the term Progressive now applies to people who were formerly called Liberals. However, would consider the "ron paul" branch of the Left, IE the Nader/Kucinich voters (or those who refuse to vote at all) certainly don't love Obama or support him uncritically. Link to post Share on other sites
strategy 4 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 This video is one of the funniest things I've ever seen on youtube. Thanks for posting.you just got him to unblock you and you go and do this Link to post Share on other sites
mk 11 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 you just got him to unblock you and you go and do thisthe video made me lol, what do you want from me Link to post Share on other sites
strategy 4 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 the video made me lol, what do you want from meI laughed as well, but I didn't go full b-hole on the guyvideo is straight out of zerohedge. looked like it was ripped off, some other tinfoiler was complaining about it being re-upped in the comments. funny what people do for youtube's paltry ad revenue.I'm definitely rolling in the nickels from your johnny hates jazz cover vid Link to post Share on other sites
SilentSnow 1 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Greenwald sets up a giant strawman for that article, and that is the idea that Progressives support Obama. Liberals unquestionably do, but progressives? Some of them may have indeed voted for Obama, but I'm positive it was done in a pragmatic "less of two evils" sense, than a genuine belief that Obama represented true progressive change. And, if they did think that in 2008, they certainly don't now. For example, if you turn on Democracy Now, you won't hear a broadcast full of Obama rah-rahing. You'll hear many stories highly critical of US foreign and Domestic policy. Chomsky has done nothing but blast Obama and maintain that there's no substantive difference between Democratic and Republican foreign and domestic policies. Maybe the concept of what a liberal is has shifted so far to the right, that the term Progressive now applies to people who were formerly called Liberals. However, would consider the "ron paul" branch of the Left, IE the Nader/Kucinich voters (or those who refuse to vote at all) certainly don't love Obama or support him uncritically.I don't think he sets up a strawmen. It is generally understood among progressives(and by Greenwald) that many if not most intellectual progressives do not like Obama. The only question is whether Obama is the lesser of two evils. I would side with the "vote him out" option. Obama has been a complete disaster for liberals. If we continue to support him, then we lose any ability to ever influence policy since politicians with the Democrat label could do anything they want and get away with it. Now that the crazies have been eliminated, there is no reason at all to support Obama. Let Romney win and have the Republicans take some of the blame for the mess they have worked so hard to create. Also, "liberal" and "progressive" are not well-defined words, so you should be careful to define them when using them. I personally define progressive/liberal as being essentially the same thing. Link to post Share on other sites
strategy 4 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 the fed thinks it'll have to start raising interest rates in mid-2013. that is finance for "jobs come back." in that scenario, romney absolutely will take credit for the recovery, and some number of simpletons will become lifelong republicans based on this sequence of events. Link to post Share on other sites
FCP Bob 1,312 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 the fed thinks it'll have to start raising interest rates in mid-2013. that is finance for "jobs come back." in that scenario, romney absolutely will take credit for the recovery, and some number of simpletons will become lifelong republicans based on this sequence of events.and even if no economic policies would have actually changed or taken effect by then you can bet that improved confidence because Obama is no longer Prez will be trotted out as a major reason for an improved economy which of course will be bullshit. Link to post Share on other sites
strategy 4 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 and even if no economic policies would have actually changed or taken effect by then you can bet that improved confidence because Obama is no longer Prez will be trotted out as a major reason for an improved economy which of course will be bullshit.you speak the truth. credit to krugman, "confidence fairy" is a pretty awesome nickname for that reasoning. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 and even if no economic policies would have actually changed or taken effect by then you can bet that improved confidence because Obama is no longer Prez will be trotted out as a major reason for an improved economy which of course will be bullshit. you speak the truth. credit to krugman, "confidence fairy" is a pretty awesome nickname for that reasoning.So you guys don't think that planning ahead is part of a business strategy? Link to post Share on other sites
BaseJester 1 Posted January 10, 2012 Author Share Posted January 10, 2012 That, and Iraq being the biggest war since WW2 with different countries joining to claim the land and take sides, or whatever he said.Agreed, he's off by a factor of 10 at least.What did he predict that wasn't obvious? I think it was all pretty obvious, but it's obviousness is damning for a lot of people. Some of the supposed reasons for entering the war on Iraq hadn't even been discovered. Abuses of the Patriot Act hadn't happened, but obviously would by the nature of power. I also think we're experiencing much higher rates of inflation than the CPI indicates. Link to post Share on other sites
strategy 4 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 So you guys don't think that planning ahead is part of a business strategy?anyone who pays more attention to potential policy changes/elections rather than today's absolutely awful consumer demand numbers, the bleak state of the yield curve, or expectations about any of that going forward, is not doing a good job of running their business. policy moves are a concern--no denying that--but not on a scale that compares to what the consumer means to businesses. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 anyone who pays more attention to potential policy changes/elections rather than today's absolutely awful consumer demand numbers, the bleak state of the yield curve, or expectations about any of that going forward, is not doing a good job of running their business. policy moves are a concern--no denying that--but not on a scale that compares to what the consumer means to businesses.My company has people devoted to analyzing the economy, and a large part of that is analyzing how policies affect business.We're up about 100% in the last 5 years.Yes, expectations matter to good companies. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now