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

I hope I make ememies with every single poster on this forum

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

Define sexual harassment. When Ron Paul was asked about this, he brought up the example of someone telling a rude joke and that becoming the impetus for a lawsuit. That's the problem with sloppy language. But by all means, continue to bash one candidate you have a vendetta against for some reason while not bothering to explain how you can support whatever aspiring despot you want to vote for.

Originally Posted by AbsoluteVoluntarist

Define sexual harassment. When Ron Paul was asked about this, he brought up the example of someone telling a rude joke and that becoming the impetus for a lawsuit. That's the problem with sloppy language. But by all means, continue to bash one candidate you have a vendetta against for some reason while not bothering to explain how you can support whatever aspiring despot you want to vote for.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...ual+harassment

I find Ron Paul's suggestion that the victim's of sexual harassment are somehow partially to blame and that they should remedy the situation by quitting their jobs is at best imbecilic.

Originally Posted by mrund3rd09

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?

Judicial powers isn't about "more serious matters" or "less serious matters." It is about jurisdiction. Sexual harrassment can either be state or federal, but still be just as serious in either case. If you look at this case: Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore, you will see that it is a very serious matter.

BTW, karma rarely takes care of people who act like ducks, just look at Bill Clinton or Clarence Thomas as examples.

Originally Posted by Jason Bourne

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...ual+harassment

I find Ron Paul's suggestion that the victim's of sexual harassment are somehow partially to blame and that they should remedy the situation by quitting their jobs is at best imbecilic.

He is blaming the individual along with Society itself that takes offensive jokes too seriously and Society itself is trying to make us all "PC".

Originally Posted by TrueBluTexan

You can't ber serious?

Why, you disagree? You think if you get sick you have a right to my money? You think the government should decide what is NSFW?

Originally Posted by Jason Bourne

No, it exists, in part, to protect me and I expect it to.

It exists to execute certain enumerated powers, none of which include regulating the office place or policing harassment. Those are the purview of individuals and state and local governments. Maybe if you weren't so obsessed with smearing Ron Paul (do you do anything else here?), you'd realize that a great many of the things he says have a basis in Constitutional law and American political philosophy.

Originally Posted by Jason Bourne

My goodness! Where is this happening? And I wasn't aware that the police levied taxes.

I love it. You cry about some petty office harassment and then flippantly dismiss the authoritarian and pervasive infringement of rights that is the war on drugs.

Where is it happening, you ask? All over America, of course. Here's one example from Boston:

Grandpa killed in drug raid

Thousands of Americans are assaulted, imprisoned, and killed every year in the prosecution of this vile war on drugs, but that's not important to you. You're more concerned about someone getting their butt pinched at work...

No, Paul supports the victims of sexual harassment quitting their jobs.

Define "sexual harassment" and then we can have a serious discussion, though I doubt you are capable of such when the discussion concerns your obsession.

How would the federal government enforcing sexual harassment laws in the workplace in any way affect your prosperity?

By further eroding the constraints that the Constitution has placed on the Federal government.

Ron Paul is right herassment should be a state and local matter. Though it is not the fualt of the herassed.

Originally Posted by Jason Bourne

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...ual+harassment

I find Ron Paul's suggestion that the victim's of sexual harassment are somehow partially to blame and that they should remedy the situation by quitting their jobs is at best imbecilic.

I find that if whoever you support had said the same thing he'd said, you wouldn't give a hoot. I find that out of your 25 most recently posted threads, 17 are focused on Ron Paul. That's 68%! By contrast, only 2 have anything to with any other candidates. This is despite the fact you wouldn't undoubtedly argue that Ron Paul "will never win." That is bizarre behavior, yet the typical behavior pattern of Paul-o-phobes.