ping: Nate .. old baja pics

Page 5 of 7  


Actually, that is not the correct definition an how exactly was he exploiting Monica? It seems to me that she was a willing participant and that alone by definition makes it NOT sexual harassment. Go look up the definition.

Sorry Miles, but that is incorrect.

Sorry Miles, but your right wing definition of sexual harassment is WRONG. The sexual advances have to both be continual and UNWANTED. If I were to ask someone one time if they wanted to sleep with me and didn't threaten them if they said no, that is not sexual harassment. If i kept asking after they asked me to stop, threatened them is they said no, or offered them an improved position if they said yes, then it would be but that was not the case with Monica or prpbably most of the ones that accused him.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

Geez Tom, you have no clue what sexual harassment means? Do you feel its about rape or something?

lol, I think you need to do just that!! Quid pro quo is the form Clinton was accused of or possible the Counselor-Helper form which is using position of power to gain sexual favors in the workplace. There are many forms.

Uh no Tom, you would be incorrect. You seem to feel theres only one form, probably forced verbal and physically. Not so. The scenario above was the main issue involved in all the harassment cases of the 80's and 90's.

BULL!!! Thats only one form of harassment. There are over a dozen definitions that vary from state to state and the Federal gov. lists quite a few as well.
If I were to

No threats need to be made. Offers of advancement, special privilides in the workplace etc. in exchange is also considered sexual harassment despite your claims otherwise.
> or offered them an

Ding ding, we have a winner. That is what Clinton was accused of and why charges were filed against him. The questioning of Monica most certainly did deal with this issue.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not at all miles but harassment has to be harassment and what you are calling sexual harassment is simply not the case.

You need to further look up or at least understand the definition Miles. Every version still indicates either some type of force or harassment.. Any way you want to spin it Miles, it was a desperate act by the right due to fear and hatred.

Again Miles, you don't have a clue.

And they all have a general premise that was not present with Monica.

That is correct Miles because that is also considered a threat. If you sleep with me you will get whatever also translates into if you don't sleep with me, you will not get whatever. What exactly was Monica either promised or threatened with?

Not really. BTW, they didn't ask Bill if he sexually harassed her, only if he had sex with her. IOW, a lame attempt to discredit him out of fear and hatred.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

You feel it means against ones will. Not so. As for your 'desperate act' rhetoric look at what the left has done lately and for decades. They have on case after another against reps. Most are just for public consumption gains as they are dropped as the left knows they will be. The investigation wasn't launched by the reps. A single individual (a dem) filed a suit as did other women almost all of which were dems.

Threatened? She was given preferential treatment far and above any other page at the WH because she put out. That is exactly what triggered the sexual harassment movement of the 80's. She couldn't get those privileges unless she did. Even willingly agreeing can still be considered harassment. Clinton used his power status for sexual gains in the workplace in exchange for privileged status.
However, she didn't press charges so the case wasn't about her. She did publicly claim harassment after the case was over because Clinton dissed her when he got busted. She never pressed charges. She was a character witness to a grand jury investigating a case against Clinton. It was only a grand jury investigation, not a trial that Monica was involved in. The resulting trial was because Clinton lied under oath.

lol, before they asked that question they proved he had given rather unique special privileges to Monica. That was established.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

By the definition of harassment, that is correct.

Oh please Miles, the left has never been as good at stirring up shit as the right. The left tend to look at the big picture and see all of the damage that these things can cause, something that the right could give a rats ass about. Sadly, the left are beginning to learn how to attack without concern as well.

Really??? Name a few.

LOL, yea, and the right had nothing to do with it. Give me a break Miles.

And your proof is??? Oh, that's right, you don't have any. Sorry Miles, but any preferential treatment that she may have received could simply be because he liked her and that is just human nature.

Once again and as usual, you make accusations that you cannot possibly hope to prove or even back up.

No, it cannot. Agreeing and willingly agreeing are two very different things. A person may agree to something due to a want or need of something offered while willingly agreeing means that you would agree to it regardless of any offer.

I suppose that he may have at times and unfortunantly, he is not alone there but in the case of Monica, there is no proof of any kind that he did that there.

Of course not. If they tried that one, further investigation would have revealed the setup that it was.

Duh, no shit. She was revealed to be the lowlife scumbag that she was and was trying to save face.

Again, she couldn't because the true facts of what really happened would have came to light and the reps would never allow that to happen.

IOW, a fishing expedition and a set up to a sitting President by a scared, desperate, and cowerdly party.

Again, a win win situation for the reps regardless of how it made the country look. Had he told the truth, he would have been discrased and if he lied, he would still be discrased by a trial that never should have happened while he was in office but it would serve no point to the reps after he left.

Oh really, how about backing that one up and then prove that it was due to sexual favors and not just because he liked her.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving


>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

Thats one definition and not 'THE' definition as defined by the courts. You seem to have slept through the main issue during the sex harassment movement of the 80's.

She filed the complaint while Clinton was still a Gov. Geez Tom is your hateful bias in full swing.

You feel she was a lowlife but Clinton was just fine in all this huh? A tad bit biased there Tom!

As he should be. He used his power in office for sexual gains in the workplace. Thats disgusting especially for a seated president. Couldn't he have taken her to a hotel instead of using the janitors closet in the WH??
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

Sorry Miles, but you are wrong again.

LOL, and yet, nothing was done until the White Water attack on the Clintons failed and then suddenly, it is the utmost of national importance.

Where did I ever say that what Clinton did was ok????

And what difference does it make where it happened? You keep making these claims that Clinton was the only guilty party but have yet to back any of it up.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

Only in a hateful biased liberals mind. It began to grow considerably the following year while federal income grew faster than ever before.

As did Clintons tech bubble which you seem to have loved so much and credit Clinton for.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What you call growth most call recover from but even there, while big business made a lot of money, the same cannot be said for the majority of Americans.

Actually, you are the one that just credited him for it by calling it Clintons tech bubble. The thing is that during the tech bubble, the whole economy took off because many people had well paying jobs and were spending money, unlike now.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nathan W. Collier wrote:

Generally speaking yes it is. For any problem in Mexico's Gov. it's not too difficult to find the same thing in the USA.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

if that works for you, good. believe what you wish. on the one hand i have a mexican native (former/future) employee and in fact a very good friend telling me one thing, and some guy on the internet who i dont know telling me that he found something on the internet that contradicts what my employee told me. i think i would consider his word more credible.
.......nothing personal sir.
--
Nathan In Montana
http://BighornTactical.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nathan W. Collier wrote:

Huh Nate? I don't base anything on the internet. I've lived there and have family in Mexico. I know what it's like there. Your beliefs are old worn out stereotypical myths not based on anything other than hearsay. It's sad that so many in this country have a complete lack of understanding about our neighbors.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

you were quoting a mexican government website. that _is_ something you found on the internet.

ill let oscar know hes really NOT earning roughly $5 a day. ill let him know that hes NOT sharing a house with a dozen other people (only way they can afford a house) and ill let him know its because some guy on the internet told me its just a stereotypical myth. :-)
.....ok, actually hes not. i sent him money to float on until we can get him back up here. but he WAS before i sent the money.
--
Nathan In Montana
http://BighornTactical.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nathan W. Collier wrote:

To TBone on an unrelated subject because he demands sites which I agree with you that they're worthless. You can find anything you want on the internet to show anything you want.
You replied about Gov. corruption. It's here in the USA as well but works a bit different. Not as blatent. But the idea of trying to bribe your way out of a mess in Mexico is myth.

If he needs a better paying job let me know. I know where to send him to make far more. Theres people here in the USA making didly squat. You base what all of Mexico is like based on Oscar?

Theres people in the USA doing the same thing. Whats your point?
and ill let him know its because some guy on the

Theres poor people in the USA as well. Should the USA be stereotyped in the same way as you are with Mexico?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Damn Miles, now you have to resort to lies.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So you are saying that the average Mexican is making 15 to 20 dollars a day???
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

That is the average and not the median income. Housing costs about 90% less than in the USA except in areas close to our borders. Theres also considerable free housing available in many cities especially southern Mexico.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

LOL, if I were to eliminate your housing costs, could you live on 15 to 20 dollars a day. Even if the median income were double that (and I doubt that), could you feed and cloth a family of 8 for that? I used that number because you made that claim about 6 kids with the new truck. How about a more realistic family of 4??? As for that free housing, I doubt that it is very livable or there would be no reason for so many Mexicans to try and come here.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

Thats the average, not median income. Again, people in Mexico have vastly different priorities. They live quite well. Now quit trying to argue about a country you have never even been too.

Take a look. Mexico is ranked between Australia and Poland. Hardly dirt poor countries.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_pop_bel_med_inc_pergdp-below-median-income-per-gdp
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_pop_bel_med_inc_pergdp-below-median-income-per-gdp Did you actually bother to click on the link and read it or are you just trying to make it easier for me? There population below the poverty level is 40%. Since you seem to be stuck in moron mode, that means that almost half of the population doesn't make enough to really survive. This is what makes up your cultural differences and why so many try and come here, legally or otherwise. Even from the link that you sent me: "CALDERON has stated that his top priorities include reducing poverty and creating jobs" it also mentions the need to upgrade infrastructure and modernize labor laws. Sorry Miles, but while Mexico has come a long way and continues to improve, they still have a lot of issues and a lot of poor that simply cannot find work and not all of it is unskilled labor.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.