Lucky...

Quite the binary world you live in. Guess that makes canopy choice easy - I'll take the black one! when it gets to the point described vaguely above, it's not subtle. It's not just one person 'feeling threatened.' Everyone around sees this behavior and wonders if the guy is going to snap. And that's where managers/HR earn their keep. They're supposed to talk with the person privately and see if there is cause for concern. And if so, send the guy home, be it for the day, or forever. We had a person like this in our group earlier in the year. He didn't take to technical debate well, took disagreement very personally. Fortunately, before we had to make a call on making an issue out of it, he abruptly gave notice and quit the same day. Exactly, thank you.

This is the age-old argument between workers rights vs employer responsibilities. You seem to need to trivialize my arguments to make your point. I'm not talking about the break room not having warm muffins every break, I'm talking about obvious harassment. I had a case at work where this big MF came in there, buddied with me and everyone, then once he had a stronghold he became a monster and divided the clique and annointed himself as the leader. People followed. I was outed, essentially told I couldn't play dominos at break, the company had a softball team, got everyone to strongly infer that I was not to play, etc. At first, management loved him and encouraged his crap to divide, they gave him privs, etc... As an aside, his premise was Jebus and that was one form of division. Anywho, they then saw the monster they created, the one who went to the bar with them and rubbed elbows. So they took their first chance to ax his sorry ass and did so in short order. THESE ARE THE KINDS OF CASES THE COURT WANTS TO DISSUADE, not the ones where the room temp is not exactly right, as you might refer. See, I had choices and in the old days I would have acted stupidly, now I just bought my time and waited and sure as hell, he imploded. When management decided to off their mess, they went searching and found that another co-worker, his buddy had screwed some chick and announced that she had a smelly pussy. That was 1 1/2 months before they needed him to be gone, so they dug in the archives and then did zero to the guy that then worked with management to disclose what he had said; he kept his job even tho he was the original source. In fact, that girl worked at the same place, so they encouraged her to complain, she did, that was all she wrote. After his ouster, management kind of apologized to me and others ousted by being really nice. The other guys who acted like ass, some of my friends b4 that crap, tried to apologize and of course I just gave them blank stares and then they acted offended. So if I were a nut I might have gone postal or done something rash, this is the stuff the court wants to dissuade and civil liability works great. Again, worker vs employer and we're on opposite sides. Isn't it great to live in such a Nazi fucking nation that our very management divides us...hell, they can't control us unless they do, they get us to cross picket lines, roll on each other.....yet those icky Socialized nations don't behave that way.

I've said that for some time, corporal punishment: hit people hard and with more frequency until they behave as you wish. Hnmmmm, wonder what we teach them? Then they watch the news and watch us kill (execute people daily sometimes)....but at least they see no boobies Can you not distinguish between a person breaking into a house and murdering someone and a person being executed because they broke into a house and murdered someone? I was addressing the other poster's point on corporal punishment. As for the DP, dangle more pictures of defenseless victims to forget about the innocent people executed.....better yet, just ignore the obvious truth.

You might want to recall that the special prosecuter was already in place when they found out about Monica. There was no shortage of what I'd generally categorize as petty scandals during the Clinton Administration. Few, if true, greatly affected the nation (China stuff notwithstanding), but it still indicated a general drunkness on power. As this tends to get worse whenever a party is at the end of 2 or 3 terms, the occasional flip to the other party is beneficial. And let's not forget that the Gore of 2000 isn't the one that remade himself as an environmentalist. This is much like the many lifes of Jerry Brown. >>>>>>>>>>>You might want to recall that the special prosecuter was already in place when they found out about Monica. There was no shortage of what I'd generally categorize as petty scandals during the Clinton Administration. Ok, so you do think the cum-in-mouth scandal was relevant to a successful presidency or not. Just as Bush beingthe first criminal elected, that has no bearing on his performance. The BJ deal is desperate, and I can counter with the Scooter Libby example and reaction from the right to quell that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Few, if true, greatly affected the nation (China stuff notwithstanding), but it still indicated a general drunkness on power. I don't think any affected the nation at all, domestically or foreign. Drunkeness on power? Nah, I would hit it just as you would, we're guys and a little oval-office head would never be turned down. Drunkeness on power is usirpation of power and getting head is not in line with that. Trying to trump congress and the like are examples of D of Power. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And let's not forget that the Gore of 2000 isn't the one that remade himself as an environmentalist. This is much like the many lifes of Jerry Brown. Right, he has changed hats and didn't preach the environment as much as he does now. As well, he had no marks against him. Point made by me was, that this admin has fucked the country on all the ways illustrated.

I'm sory, you missed the entire post, here it is again, if you are able to address the points: Now, onto me, since you insist this must be about me. What I think of Republican voters? I think there is a dichotomy: 1. The educated - I think they are maggots who care more about money and world domination than they are about people, as in socialized countries. 2. The uneducated - I think they feel drawn to follow an ideology, probably based upon family ritual. Now, when I argue substantive points I may use slanderous terms, but that is not an ad hominem unless I base my argument on that. For example, The Repugnicans are lowering taxes which will further these economic woes the country is undergoing. The slander is the use of calling Republicans, repugnant. The substantive element of the argument is that of saying how Republicans continually lower taxes, damaging the country. Now if I were to write: Due to the repugnant nature of the Repugnicans, they will fuck the country worse. That would be more of an Ad Hominem, as I would be basing the argument on the supposed repugnant nature of the Republican Party. I realize when I write fun slander here and there it's like jingling shiny keys and negates any chance of a response on the issues, of course what are you going to say, that the debt increase from 1T to just about 10T is not the fault of the Republicans? It's a lost argument for you, so you just look for the first set of shiny keys you can. Really, explain how we can defend much of what the Republicans have done in 20 of the last 28 years? If you had substance, you would look beyond the shiny keys. I think you misunderstand what an Ad Homiem is though, it is an argument based upon a character assassination, as in: Obama can't be a good president because he is black, McCain can't be a good president because he's old. See, if I interchanged black with N***** it would still be an ad hominem, just with slander on top of it. Let's change old with old bastard, same thing, the ad hominem is found in the assertion, not the slander. I do understand that you don’t understand exactly what an ad hominem is, and that's ok, cause look........... ---> shiny keys Now, to address your ?points? >>>>>>>>>>>>>you would have found proof of all the stuff you accuse the Republicans of doing Evidence of the Republican nightmare from 1981: - loss of US Const rights - debt from 1T to ~10T - healthcare becoming exclusive and unreachable to many - fighting a ???war??? on unfounded principle / lies - morgage meltdown - record BK's - record foreclosures - just like daddy, left a mess - did I leave out a few hundred? Are you better now than you were 7 1/2 years ago?

Right, Americans are not well read and don't understand these things.

I've said that for some time, corporal punishment: hit people hard and with more frequency until they behave as you wish. Hnmmmm, wonder what we teach them? Then they watch the news and watch us kill (execute people daily sometimes)....but at least they see no boobies

Arguments for the DP are dead-ended. In order to make it cheaper we woul have to abreviate it, causing more innocent people to be sucked in. COuld you imagine the dirty, dirty cops and prosecutors slamming people thru if they knew they would be under less scrutiny?

Like I said.. THEY believe that 90% of the country is liberal.. since only about 10% are that far right of center.. it does skew the shit out of things. They see liberals hiding behind every tree.. just waiting to give away their jobs to minorities I hear ya, I was poking fun at their ill-perception, not yours. With us or against us and no, we're not lock-stepped....RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT.

Wait, you care that the few innocent people that you believe are convicted don't receive the death penalty but you don't care that they are raped on a daily basis? PS: I also find it interesting that you condemn others for advocating (or using) torture while advocating torture (being raped on a daily basis) yourself ... way to go! Wait, you weren't actually expecting a reasoned, rational position from her, with consistency and everything, were you? Yeah, right! You know how many times I've read the opinions of death-penalty opponents, who say it's cruel and inhumane to execute murderers, who then say that we should be happy to give them life in prison because of how cruel and sucky life in prison is, and how torturous to spend decades behind dank walls in a tiny cell? So on one hand, they are all about compassion and being humane, and on the other hand, tell us that we should support life in prison because it's a great way to make life torture for the condemned. This is the "consistency" of the left. >>>>>>>>>>>You know how many times I've read the opinions of death-penalty opponents, who say it's cruel and inhumane to execute murderers, who then say that we should be happy to give them life in prison because of how cruel and sucky life in prison is, and how torturous to spend decades behind dank walls in a tiny cell? So on one hand, they are all about compassion and being humane, and on the other hand, tell us that we should support life in prison because it's a great way to make life torture for the condemned. This is the "consistency" of the left. Aside from your invalid generalization of the left, make no misunderstanding, I have no issue with the Bundy's of the world getting fried, I have issue with the obviously innocent people getting framed by the garbage pigs, prosecutors and then executed. The problem is that if we have a system that executes at all, there is no way to avoid eventually killing a person who had zero to do with a murder. The slippery lope, lying pigs, overzealous prosecution, they did it to themselves. In fact, the exclsionary rule, the rule that excludes evidence for illegal searches and the sort, has been upheld to deter police misconduct. OTW, justices are aware that police miscondict is a way of their normal protocol.

Do you want all murderers to be forgiven and released from prison? Is so, I make a motion that they be sent to YOUR home town. Yea really............. hey, I have an idea...... let's lock him away for the rest of his life w/o parole. Does it have to be excution or freedom? The major problem I have with that is this: The reason we don't execute many murderers is almost exclusively the fact that over the decades, liberals have stood defiantly in the way of letting that be the norm. So we ended up with "life in prison"--which hardly ever means ACTUAL life in prison until the death of the prisoner. Why? Because even when they can prevent execution, which they despise (even when it's a despicable criminal murderer being executed), they are not as good as their word. They don't keep their word, and after a while, "life in prison" means, "Oh, we'll keep him there until he convinces us he can be well-behaved." If I knew that "LIFE IN PRISON" would fucking MEAN "LIFE IN PRISON," and the murderer won't be let out until he's been pronounced dead, I might consent to that. And I would want to make sure that the sentence involved the STARKEST of existences, NO ENTERTAINMENT WHATSOEVER, no socializing, no learning, no NOTHIN'. MAKE IT SUCK VERY BADLY FOR THE CONVICT. And do everything possible to make sure that no convict ever gets an opportunity to harm a prison employee. See, that is one huge objection I have to warehousing useless vermin like murderers forever and ever: every one of them is a living lethal threat to GOOD guys. I've seen a now-famous photo of a burly prison guard who was slashed five or six times on the back and chest by a convict with some sort of contraband blade. The officer is sitting on a treatment table, presumably VERY doped-up, and he looks like a slab of beef. His cuts are wide open and appear to be about two inches in depth. THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE WON'T EXECUTE DANGEROUS VERMIN. THEY TAKE THAT 1 IN 1000 CHANCE TO HURT THEIR JAILERS. THAT IS A CHANCE THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE IF WE WERE NOT INDULGING THEM TO [I]LIVE[/I]. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The major problem I have with that is this: The reason we don't execute many murderers... >1,000 in 31 years? Sorry the numbers aren't high enough for you. DOn' worry tho, they all weren't murderers, we had to pad the numbers with a few innocent people to keep you happy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The reason we don't execute many murderers is almost exclusively the fact that over the decades, liberals have stood defiantly in the way of letting that be the norm. Executing people being the norm? Of civilized countries, the norm is to NOT execute people for fear of error, which is irrefutable and unavoidable. Liberals suck, yea, they are the ones that decided we should get away from an oppressive country in England, we should fight for our freedom in the revolutionary war and that we should denounce slavery.... god damned liberals. So now the stinking fucking liberals want to stop executing people so we stop dropping in the occassional innocent person. God Damn those liberals. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So we ended up with "life in prison"--which hardly ever means ACTUAL life in prison until the death of the prisoner. It means 25 years, unless there is the statement, w/o parole which is often he case in capital cases, so they do spend their natural lives in there. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.Why? Because even when they can prevent execution, which they despise (even when it's a despicable criminal murderer being executed), they are not as good as their word. They don't keep their word, and after a while, "life in prison" means, "Oh, we'll keep him there until he convinces us he can be well-behaved." Can you cite something? This is rhetoric until you can cite enough cases to make a standard. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.If I knew that "LIFE IN PRISON" would fucking MEAN "LIFE IN PRISON," and the murderer won't be let out until he's been pronounced dead, I might consent to that. They are let out if they are deemed innocent if given life w/o parole. So it's more important to extinguish them all, guilty and innocent alike, rather than ensure they are actually guilty? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And I would want to make sure that the sentence involved the STARKEST of existences, NO ENTERTAINMENT WHATSOEVER, no socializing, no learning, no NOTHIN'. MAKE IT SUCK VERY BADLY FOR THE CONVICT. I don't care either way. That kind of angry, retributionist mentality is what got a lot of these guys in prison. If they have cable, is that so horrible? Do you think they think they ae getting over cause they watch a football game here or there? Being in jail sucks, no number of hookers, weed, radios or TVs can make it cool, so I don't spend time wonderring if they are doing any of that stuff, I have a life. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And do everything possible to make sure that no convict ever gets an opportunity to harm a prison employee. See, that is one huge objection I have to warehousing useless vermin like murderers forever and ever: every one of them is a living lethal threat to GOOD guys. Supermax is real hard to do anything and they get like 1 hour a day out of their cage. What if we warehouse innocent vermin? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE WON'T EXECUTE DANGEROUS VERMIN. THEY TAKE THAT 1 IN 1000 CHANCE TO HURT THEIR JAILERS. THAT IS A CHANCE THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE IF WE WERE NOT INDULGING THEM TO LIVE. That's awesome, I love the entire paragraph in upper case, that way I can virtually see your veins popping out. We have a balance here, the desire, the need to kill versus the need to ensure we EVER kill one innocent person. Civilized countries have decided it is more important to not kill 1 innocent person, whereas we have a negligible number, say 1 innocent person executed per year. Apparently you agree with that number.

Sure, not that the employee is happy, but that they don't feel threatened, outed, etc. and I think that's more of what happened here. I've been near these sutuations and they get ugly. I think the courts are being a little hypersensitive due to the workplace and other shootings.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now go run along and play, son - Daddy has reading to do. As for this, I'd be surprised if I'm younger than you, kid

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>YOU came to see who was disrespecting The Anointed One Case in point, you feel very threatened that he WILL be pres.... too bad, so sad for you . Now, onto me, since you insist this must be about me. What I think of Republican voters? I think there is a dichotomy: 1. The educated - I think they are maggots who care more about money and world domination than they are about people, as in socialized countries. 2. The uneducated - I think they feel drawn to follow an ideology, probably based upon family ritual. Now, when I argue substantive points I may use slanderous terms, but that is not an ad hominem unless I base my argument on that. For example, The Repugnicans are lowering taxes which will further these economic woes the country is undergoing. The slander is the use of calling Republicans, repugnant. The substantive element of the argument is that of saying how Republicans continually lower taxes, damaging the country. Now if I were to write: Due to the repugnant nature of the Repugnicans, they will fuck the country worse. That would be more of an Ad Hominem, as I would be basing the argument on the supposed repugnant nature of the Republican Party. I realize when I write fun slander here and there it's like jingling shiny keys and negates any chance of a response on the issues, of course what are you going to say, that the debt increase from 1T to just about 10T is not the fault of the Republicans? It's a lost argument for you, so you just look for the first set of shiny keys you can. Really, explain how we can defend much of what the Republicans have done in 20 of the last 28 years? If you had substance, you would look beyond the shiny keys. I think you misunderstand what an Ad Homiem is though, it is an argument based upon a character assassination, as in: Obama can't be a good president because he is black, McCain can't be a good president because he's old. See, if I interchanged black with N***** it would still be an ad hominem, just with slander on top of it. Let's change old with old bastard, same thing, the ad hominem is found in the assertion, not the slander. I do understand that you don’t understand exactly what an ad hominem is, and that's ok, cause look........... ---> shiny keys

Truth is we don't know all the nuances of this suit. We really can't draw anything but an abstract inference here. Negligence is negligence and if a bully is in the workplace, we've all seen em, then the boss has to fix it including firing the SOB, even if it's his buddy. I think we're all looking for frivality as in the McDonald's hot cofeee suit, which settled for a fraction of the oroginal judgment. What do you do if the boss ignores a bully that is making your life hell? WHat do you do if that bully is the boss? Working isn;t an option, it's a requirement, so since it is that then we need to ensure fair play. The more we empower employers and disempower workers the more we enjoy the kind of BS this admin has brought us in 8 years. Yes, there is hypersensitivity, but there is also apathy; let's find fair.

*Hypothetically* you win the, "Lucky..." is a no good SOB, now that your life is complete after that, in case you accidentally prompted onto this thread I'll remind you of the title: Barack admits he doesn't know what he's doing You came here to address that issue, then became distracted as with shiny keys, why not address teh reason you came here, to explain how Obama will make such a bad president? Here are some talking points for you: It's stomach turning for you only because he has a chance of winning. He represents a threat to the Bush protocol that you want to see continued, so you want to defame his presence. This is called an ad hominem, so rather than pointing out the actual things he has done that you consider flawed, you refer to hi so-called arrogance or his inexperience. I can illustrate why McCain's ideas are flawed for this time by referencing that he doesn't want to change a lot that Bush has done and is doing. McCain wants to continue the tax cuts, continue the quest to privatize everything, limit governmental control, further the so-called war and do most if what Bush is doing. It's hard to argue that this country is going down the dumper under Bush and McCain wants the same things. Under Clinton the debt was levelling off and the annual budget became a surplus from a 290B/yr deficit that GHW Bush left. See, these are substantive measures, not Ad Hominems, try it.

Say the man who constantly refers to "rescumlicans' or 'repuglicans'... irony score 10000/10. And I'm not running for office. Not ironic how Republican voters misdirect; they have no sunstance to proud of, just shame. Now, bck to our egularly scheduled argument..... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - It's stomach turning for you only because he has a chance of winning. He represents a threat to the Bush protocol that you want to see continued, so you want to defame his presence. This is called an ad hominem, so rather than pointing out the actual things he has done that you consider flawed, you refer to hi so-called arrogance or his inexperience. I can illustrate why McCain's ideas are flawed for this time by referencing that he doesn't want to change a lot that Bush has done and is doing. McCain wants to continue the tax cuts, continue the quest to privatize everything, limit governmental control, further the so-called war and do most if what Bush is doing. It's hard to argue that this country is going down the dumper under Bush and McCain wants the same things. Under Clinton the debt was levelling off and the annual budget became a surplus from a 290B/yr deficit that GHW Bush left. See, these are substantive measures, not Ad Hominems, try it. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Care to address substance? Or continue with how I'm such a bad guy? Oh wait, wait, Obama will make a bad president and is therefore unqualified because I make fun of Republicans. Now Bush being supposedly elected twice makes sense. Neal, address some issues above and quit running / misdirecting.

Sounds good to me, the employer has a duty to ensure a safe work environment. Now if there was no warning of the harassment, there is no negligence, but if the employer is aware of it and does nothing then he/she should be liable.

That is one of the best analogies I have seen posted. I have to wonder WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU EXPECTING when all these fucknuggets voted for Bush. He has done a similar inept and incompetent form of running this country as he did in most of his business ventures thoughout his life. DID YOU ACTUALLY THINK he would run the coutnry any differently? At the time, Gore was part of the tainted establishment. And 8 years of a Democratic White House had it's share of growing corruption and cronyism. Now, given the opportunity to vote with hindsight.... Perhaps you can tell me of the corruption. Not a load of cum in the mouth of an intern, but something that affects the country. The debt increase was 15% of what it was when he was elected, the annual deficit was now a surplus, unemployment was 4%, BK and foreclosures were way down, I'm just unsure of the corruption that you speak of.

Same as occurred with military exeperience and the 2000 election against Gore, then a 180 when they faced Kerry, a man who actually wasn't a pussy POS and got someone to keep them out of VN.

Well then Canada and the US have at least one thing in common. Many in government "think" they can control almost anything by increased taxation Well, under Clinton he increased taxes and started to get things under control, under the 3 stooges they all cut taxes and lost control; so what is your point? Look at the 2 Repub presidents in the 1920's who led us into the Great Depression, then Hoover who contiued their flawed policies and didn't gain control. Then look at FDR who brought us out of the mess. So your ideas sound real neato to think that all people of a given society can always self-sustain, but it's LSD material in that it distances itself from reality. In any scientific model you must test your hypothesis; the results of your test do not pass muster. http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

Consider this...you want to apply for a job, say CEO of a multibillion dollar corporation. You send in your resume. You have a whopping 3.5 years of experience. What do you think the chances are you'll get that job? By your way of counting, awesome. How many years of experience did Bush have before he was elected? Blues, Dave I guess as a counterargument the Republicans could answer: Yea, and look how bad he fucked things up.

Consider this...you want to apply for a job, say CEO of a multibillion dollar corporation. You send in your resume. You have a whopping 3.5 years of experience. What do you think the chances are you'll get that job? As long as you say. "I am change you can believe in," then you would have a great shot it appears. BO's lack of experience is starting to show and his arrogance is stomach turning. It's stomach turning for you only because he has a chance of winning. He represents a threat to the Bush protocol that you want to see continued, so you want to defame his presence. This is called an ad hominem, so rather than pointing out the actual things he has done that you consider flawed, you refer to hi so-called arrogance or his inexperience. I can illustrate why McCain's ideas are flawed for this time by referencing that he doesn't want to change a lot that Bush has done and is doing. McCain wants to continue the tax cuts, continue the quest to privatize everything, limit governmental control, further the so-called war and do most if what Bush is doing. It's hard to argue that this country is going down the dumper under Bush and McCain wants the same things. Under Clinton the debt was levelling off and the annual budget became a surplus from a 290B/yr deficit that GHW Bush left. See, these are sunstantive measures, not Ad Hominems, try it.

I think he will do a fine job. But as evidence that knowing what you're doing isn't a requirement, take a look at the guy you voted for the last two pres elections

Right, the problem with it is that it is adversarial, meaning side A versus side B, truth is optional. There is no jeopardy when prosecutors and cops misbehave, so they lie and usually get away with it. The system needs to create an incentive for prosecutors to find the truth rather than to get the win, until then we will keep convicting innocent and guilty alike.