Ron Paul Endorses Sexual Harassment In The Workplace, Blames Women...................

[Johnfromokc]

The more I learn about Ron Paul, the less I like him. An article on one of his many extreme positions, and a good discussion video as well.

Watch the FOX video in this link:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/0...ames-women-and-says-it-should-be-legal-video/

And then watch this panel discussion on Ron Paul:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcC-dAuOmD4


Discussion? I want to hear what the RP supporters have to say about this.

Do you guys believes his strenghts can outstrip his weaknesses?

 

[Alien Allen]

Re: Ron Paul Endorses Sexual Harassment In The Workplace, Blames Women...............

It appears he separates verbal versus physical sexual harassment.

Physical he rightfully so said there are other laws that address that.

As to verbal I disagree with him. I think they should not be ignored. I also think though that they have been stretched a bit to encompass what is arguably not harassment.

Do we need the feds to be involved in this? Is there a reason the states can not do that? My guess there are state laws already that deal with these issues. I think his main point is that the feds are over reaching to get involved.

 

[All Else Failed]

Re: Ron Paul Endorses Sexual Harassment In The Workplace, Blames Women...............

You misinterpret what he means. Like it has already been pointed out, he separates verbal and physical "harassment", whatever that means now a days. He meant that all harassment cases can be taken care of on a small scale and by local police, and does not warrant the action of the federal government to step in on such matters.

 

[Tim]

Re: Ron Paul Endorses Sexual Harassment In The Workplace, Blames Women...............

You misinterpret what he means. Like it has already been pointed out, he separates verbal and physical "harassment", whatever that means now a days. He meant that all harassment cases can be taken care of on a small scale and by local police, and does not warrant the action of the federal government to step in on such matters.

You make it seem like the federal government comes to your place of work and takes the boss away. It is handled on the local level, it's not handled by the federal government.

The only role the federal government plays here is creating one uniform law that covers every state.

 

[Alien Allen]

Re: Ron Paul Endorses Sexual Harassment In The Workplace, Blames Women...............

Why do the feds need to make a uniform law?

You must believe that without the feds none of this would ever be dealt with.

In this day and age that is highly improbable.

Same goes with hate laws. Good grief you think somebody beat you up because they like you? That is so double jeapardy but not for the USA anymore.

If you can not convict on the first try then just go after the hate crime. oye

 

[Accountable]

Re: Ron Paul Endorses Sexual Harassment In The Workplace, Blames Women...............

LOL, John, think you can put just a bit more spin on the thread title?

 

[Tim]

Re: Ron Paul Endorses Sexual Harassment In The Workplace, Blames Women...............

LOL, John, think you can put just a bit more spin on the thread title?

Does that mean you have nothing to say about his comments? His meaning Paul's

 

[Accountable]

Re: Ron Paul Endorses Sexual Harassment In The Workplace, Blames Women...............

Since it's not interstate commerce, the federal gov't really doesn't have a role in the issue at all.

 

[Zorak]

Re: Ron Paul Endorses Sexual Harassment In The Workplace, Blames Women...............

Is sexual harrassment really an issue that differs from state to state?

 

[Accountable]

Re: Ron Paul Endorses Sexual Harassment In The Workplace, Blames Women...............

Is sexual harrassment really an issue that differs from state to state?

Acceptable practices in male/female interactions vary from city to city. It still boils down to whether the interaction is welcome or not; that is the common factor. I guess different areas would disagree on the amount of responsibility the victim has (do they have to tell the harasser to stop, for instance) or even if onlookers have a responsibility to act. The bottom line, at least for those few of us left who respect the rule of law, is that it is not a federal issue according to our Constitution. It is a responsibility "reserved the States respectively, or to the people."

 

[Stone]

Re: Ron Paul Endorses Sexual Harassment In The Workplace, Blames Women...............

I couldn't get the original link to work, so I assume this youtube link is the same
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDk1_JApggk

Paul didn't respond to Wallace's initial question. He purposefully spun it off to a scenario of verbal abuse versus violence.
But sexual harassment is a verbal imposition for the purpose of a sexual response with the goal of sexual favors.
It's an issue of abuse of power to achieve a goal.

Looks like Paul's history is catching up with him.

 

[Accountable]

Re: Ron Paul Endorses Sexual Harassment In The Workplace, Blames Women...............

The more I learn about Ron Paul, the less I like him. An article on one of his many extreme positions, and a good discussion video as well.

Why do you insist on linking to liars? With the smallest amount of effort, you could find objective - well, at least more objective - smear pieces that wouldn't make you look like some kind of parrot dutifully regurgitating what Paul's enemies toss out there. Do you really believe that sexual harassment is a serious presidential issue? Is this the most important thing on your mind that the next president should be addressing? This is your make or break issue?

What do the other candidates say about sexual harassment. Mind you, Fox had to go back almost 25 years to get this "hot topic" so you should dig back at least that far on all the others.

I spose you like Obama & are planning to vote for him, right? I will wait for your answer before going forward, since you don't want me assuming I know your thoughts.

 

[Stone]

Re: Ron Paul Endorses Sexual Harassment In The Workplace, Blames Women...............

It is an issue of morals and ethics that could be held by a man in the highest office.
The same applies to other potential candidates.
Cain was just outed. If no one brought up his history, we could have been stuck with an unknown flaw.
Politicians, all, are fair game for their past.......I'm pretty sure much will be posted about other candidates in both parties.

 

[Tim]

Re: Ron Paul Endorses Sexual Harassment In The Workplace, Blames Women...............

The bottom line, at least for those few of us left who respect the rule of law, is...

It's so funny to hear you say this... because you do not respect the rule of law, well not all of it.

...that it is not a federal issue according to our Constitution....

The constitution is not the only law of the "land", you completely ignore the decisions of the Supreme Court throughout the years. The precedent set by the court over the years is just as much the rule of law as the constitution is. You cannot embrace one and not the other and claim to be one of the few that respects the rule of law. I'm sorry, but you can't just look at one piece of the law and dismiss the rest because you may not agree with the prior rulings.

Like it or not, the rule of law for our country is the constitution AND how our Supreme court has interpreted it over the years.
If you want this country to change, to go back to a strict constitutional rule of law, there are ONLY a few ways this can happen;
1. Have the supreme court over-rule all previous cases that did not adhere to the constitution. (never going to happen)
2. Make amendments to the constitution over-turning all of said precedent. (you might get some passed, but very unlikely)
3. Scrap the whole thing and start from scratch.

Until any of these things happen, quit whining about it not being constitutional....
If the court has ever ruled that according to their interpretation something IS constitutional, then IT IS! It IS now the law of the land, as much as the constitution is.

If we as citizens disagree, then we can fight it and try to change it through amendments or by changing the make-up of the court and hope they overturn it. That's it, that's all we can do......

 

[Minor Axis]

Re: Ron Paul Endorses Sexual Harassment In The Workplace, Blames Women...............

I think Ron Paul has integrity, but I've never cared for his Libertarian (personal liberty) values. Too much focus on "me" instead of "we". Without standardized sexual harrassment standards, people in positions of power can abuse those under them in a way I think most of us would deem to be undesirable. These are good rules. No one, especially females should feel pressured towards unwanted intimacy, with their jobs hanging in the balance.

Why do the feds need to make a uniform law?

Why do you need uniform State Laws?

 

[Accountable]

Re: Ron Paul Endorses Sexual Harassment In The Workplace, Blames Women...............

It's so funny to hear you say this... because you do not respect the rule of law, well not all of it.

The constitution is not the only law of the "land", you completely ignore the decisions of the Supreme Court throughout the years.

The Supreme Court that has ignored the rule of law by "reinterpreting", contradicting, and sometimes completely ignoring the very Constitution that established the rule of law they are supposed to obey. I'm guessing you are simply ignorant of what I'm talking about, because you're generally pretty level (well, maybe half a bubble left ). Even revisionist American history acknowledges that FDR, for example, tried time and again to stack the SC to rule in his favor after being frustrated from running roughshod over the Constitution. Washington politicians & bureaucrats routinely take random phrases from the Constitution and use them out of context to justify overreaching their constitutional bounds. Lately they don't even hold that pretense.

 

[Tim]

Re: Ron Paul Endorses Sexual Harassment In The Workplace, Blames Women...............

The Supreme Court that has ignored the rule of law by "reinterpreting", contradicting, and sometimes completely ignoring the very Constitution that established the rule of law they are supposed to obey. I'm guessing you are simply ignorant of what I'm talking about, because you're generally pretty level (well, maybe half a bubble left ). Even revisionist American history acknowledges that FDR, for example, tried time and again to stack the SC to rule in his favor after being frustrated from running roughshod over the Constitution. Washington politicians & bureaucrats routinely take random phrases from the Constitution and use them out of context to justify overreaching their constitutional bounds. Lately they don't even hold that pretense.

Yes! I am fully aware that the SC has overstepped it's authority on some of it's rulings. Just look at citizens united, it makes my blood boil. Not just because of the ruling, but because it's now law of the land. There is almost no way to correct the damage they have done.
But even though I hate the ruling, it IS the law of the land and it holds the same weight of law as the constitution at this point.

But you constantly ignore the decisions of the SC. You harp on laws being unconstitutional even though they are laws that were deemed constitutional by the SC. You cannot just dismiss these rulings, you can not just ignore the fact that they are just as pertinent as the constitution itself. Because you cannot remove these decisions by the court.

 

[Accountable]

Re: Ron Paul Endorses Sexual Harassment In The Workplace, Blames Women...............

Yes! I am fully aware that the SC has overstepped it's authority on some of it's rulings. Just look at citizens united, it makes my blood boil. Not just because of the ruling, but because it's now law of the land.

Exactly my point! Now, how can you respect the rulings of a body that themselves do not follow the rule of law?? You acknowledge their abuse yet still insist they are sacrosanct.

There is almost no way to correct the damage they have done.

That doesn't give you any reason to roll over and take it up the pooper.

But even though I hate the ruling, it IS the law of the land and it holds the same weight of law as the constitution at this point.

But you constantly ignore the decisions of the SC. You harp on laws being unconstitutional even though they are laws that were deemed constitutional by the SC. You cannot just dismiss these rulings, you can not just ignore the fact that they are just as pertinent as the constitution itself. Because you cannot remove these decisions by the court.

You should be harping along with me. We should ALL be harping on this. How is it acceptable that extra-constitutional arguments are used to declare a law constitutional?? It's like saying chocolate isn't fattening because it's an aphrodisiac. The reason used may be a true statement, but it isn't relevant to the question!

Yer damn right I'll keep calling unconstitutional laws unconstitutional. For the time being it's still my right.
Yours too.