Thread: Ron Paul: Sexual harassment victims bear responsibility for resolution

Originally Posted by marbro

Typical Ron Paul slander, spin the truth and spam the spin.

The truth about your living god of libertopianism hurts, doesn't it laddie. It must be difficult for you finding out that the man who in your eyes can do no wrong has made a complete fool out of himself in this instance.

Originally Posted by Jason Bourne

The truth about your living god of libertopianism hurts, doesn't it laddie. It must be difficult for you finding out that the man who in your eyes can do no wrong has made a complete fool out of himself in this instance.

Originally Posted by Roelath

I don't quite understand the problem... He spoke against the Federal Government getting involved and is asking for State/Local Governments to handle it. He is simply saying there is no right for the Federal Government to take action in such incidents because the Federal Government doesn't have the Authority to do so. It's not as if he is saying there should be rampant harassment... God (*)(*)(*)(*) try actually reading the keywords please.

Federal vs. State/Local

You need to read the article better and his choice of words so you no longer get the misconception that he wants rampant harassment.

I don't want to bump this but he's already clarified the misunderstanding with this statement with Chris Wallace:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDk1_JApggk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDk1_JApggk[/ame]

He is saying that if it is harmless jokes then the woman should just considering switching jobs and no Federal involvement would be necessary.

If physical violence is involved then even then no federal involvement is necessary. In that case then the local law enforcement should get involved.

I agree with this. Don't you OP?

I wholeheartedly agree with Ron Paul in that these things should not be the federal government's problem, but rather a state issue or a company issue. Why should the government waste its resources towards dumb crap like this? We're all adults aren't we??

Same with gay marriage, drugs, etc. These are not our nation's priority right now. Should we be more worried about whether Steve should be able to marry Joe, or should we pay a little more attention to the national debt, our unnecessary international involvements, and the corruption committed by financial institutions at the expense of you and me??

Originally Posted by Jason Bourne

Ron Paul's position on sexual harassment in the workplace is incredible. He states that the victim of such harassment bears some responsibility and should quit their job if they want to stop the harassment. Furthermore, he states that the federal government should take no part in legislating against sexual harassment in the workplace.

Another reason not to vote for Ron Paul.


http://www.boston.com/Boston/politic...nPI/index.html

I agree with him.

Nobody, no matter how sick, has an entitlement to my money. That is what charities are for.

And individual companies have enough rules of their own against harassment. It would be much better if such matters were handled internally at these businesses. Go tell your boss if you have been offended. If he doesn't care, go tell his boss. If the whole company is against you make it public that your employer supports sexual harassment. No company likes bad press.

I don't think the government should decide what is offensive. Leave that up to the employers. If you work at a Hustler store, you shouldn't be able to sue a coworker for waving dildos around and cracking jokes. If you are too stuck up to put up with that, go work at bed bath and beyond.

Originally Posted by Jason Bourne

The truth about your living god of libertopianism hurts, doesn't it laddie. It must be difficult for you finding out that the man who in your eyes can do no wrong has made a complete fool out of himself in this instance.

You got issues man. Why not deal in actual facts. Stop pissing on people you don't agree with. Use logic to find fallacies in Ron Paul's platform and strengths in Obamittorum's platforms.

Originally Posted by mrund3rd09

I wholeheartedly agree with Ron Paul in that these things should not be the federal government's problem, but rather a state issue or a company issue. Why should the government waste its resources towards dumb crap like this? We're all adults aren't we??

Same with gay marriage, drugs, etc. These are not our nation's priority right now. Should we be more worried about whether Steve should be able to marry Joe, or should we pay a little more attention to the national debt, our unnecessary international involvements, and the corruption committed by financial institutions at the expense of you and me??

So what happens when the violation, or jokes as Ron Paul would say, occurs in the federal workplace? Or what happens if the sexual harrassment, ie the hostile workplace, violates their Constitutional right of privacy when the joke happens to videotape the opposite sex's laboratory?

In some cases, the hostile work environment, IMO, has gone overboard such as the 9th Circuit's ruling that a radio program from a conservative commentator was considered "sexual harrassment." But in other instances, a hostil work enviornment can be a legitimate. What Ron Paul is doing is trying to limit federal judicial power that he believes is too powerful. That is a wrong assumption.

Originally Posted by offconstantly

I agree with him.

Nobody, no matter how sick, has an entitlement to my money. That is what charities are for.

And individual companies have enough rules of their own against harassment. It would be much better if such matters were handled internally at these businesses. Go tell your boss if you have been offended. If he doesn't care, go tell his boss. If the whole company is against you make it public that your employer supports sexual harassment. No company likes bad press.

I don't think the government should decide what is offensive. Leave that up to the employers. If you work at a Hustler store, you shouldn't be able to sue a coworker for waving dildos around and cracking jokes. If you are too stuck up to put up with that, go work at bed bath and beyond.

You can't ber serious?

So what happens when the violation, or jokes as Ron Paul would say, occurs in the federal workplace? Or what happens if the sexual harrassment, ie the hostile workplace, violates their Constitutional right of privacy when the joke happens to videotape the opposite sex's laboratory?

In some cases, the hostile work environment, IMO, has gone overboard such as the 9th Circuit's ruling that a radio program from a conservative commentator was considered "sexual harrassment." But in other instances, a hostil work enviornment can be a legitimate. What Ron Paul is doing is trying to limit federal judicial power that he believes is too powerful. That is a wrong assumption.

in this case, I don't think he's trying to limit judicial power. He's clearing the slate for the judicial system to attend to more serious matters. It takes a real piece of work to think that sexual harassment is a legitimate problem in this country. If a guy is being a scumbag, fire him, and when he's interviewing with other employers, they're going to ask him why he left his previous job. Karma will take care of him sooner or later. Look at Herman Cain.


Also, it makes no difference whether it's a federal workplace or starbucks. If you behave like a d*ck, you get treated like one. Simple as that; what's so hard to understand?

Originally Posted by Makedde

Sounds like he is stuck in the dark ages like the rest of the candidates. What a pathetic thing to say! If you are being bullied at work, its the employers job to put a stop to it, not the person being harassed!

Really? Where in the Constitution does it say the federal govt has the power to stop sexual harassment?