Sexual Harrassment

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Sexual Harrassment

Page 30 of 32 < 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 >

jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Dec 17 5.12pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays You admitted the heart of the democratic party is progressive and with Bernie Sanders and then you come out with this drivel. Is progressive what the Alt-Right has adopted because they can't really call Democrats socialist or communists. Its fairly reasonable to assume that post political parties are progressive to some degree. Its somehow become 'a bad thing' to consider 'treating other people how you'd like to be treated yourself'. Somehow, you seem to have slipped into the idea that being progressive is the same as being the kind of f**ktard who shouts racism when you use the word black to describe a colour. A bit like being called a Liberal is an insult (yeah, take that, with your reasoned pragmatism and solutions based in rational discourse.). All citizens should have the same rights and expectations in law isn't particularly progressive either. Especially, when you consider the Republican views often being reported regarding women's rights, ethnic minorities, gay people etc. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 07 Dec 17 5.12pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

You admitted the heart of the democratic party is progressive and with Bernie Sanders and then you come out with this drivel.

Is progressive what the Alt-Right has adopted because they can't really call Democrats socialist or communists.

Its fairly reasonable to assume that post political parties are progressive to some degree. Its somehow become 'a bad thing' to consider 'treating other people how you'd like to be treated yourself'.

Somehow, you seem to have slipped into the idea that being progressive is the same as being the kind of f**ktard who shouts racism when you use the word black to describe a colour.

A bit like being called a Liberal is an insult (yeah, take that, with your reasoned pragmatism and solutions based in rational discourse.).

All citizens should have the same rights and expectations in law isn't particularly progressive either.

Especially, when you consider the Republican views often being reported regarding women's rights, ethnic minorities, gay people etc.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston Houston 07 Dec 17 5.17pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Is progressive what the Alt-Right has adopted because they can't really call Democrats socialist or communists. Progressive is the moniker that liberals adopted because the terms "liberal" had been successfully poisoned by right wing media. With the Democratic Party, having crabbed far too far to the middle (perhaps beyond), the label "Democrat" was no longer applicable to a true liberal. The irony being that, outside of politics, "liberal" is considered a positive while "conservative" has negative connotations. Somehow, in politics, this is reversed. We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.
Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston

Houston 07 Dec 17 5.17pm

Send a Private Message to Ray in Houston

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Is progressive what the Alt-Right has adopted because they can't really call Democrats socialist or communists.

Progressive is the moniker that liberals adopted because the terms "liberal" had been successfully poisoned by right wing media. With the Democratic Party, having crabbed far too far to the middle (perhaps beyond), the label "Democrat" was no longer applicable to a true liberal.

The irony being that, outside of politics, "liberal" is considered a positive while "conservative" has negative connotations. Somehow, in politics, this is reversed.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert a moderator to this post

wordup 07 Dec 17 5.42pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Is progressive what the Alt-Right has adopted because they can't really call Democrats socialist or communists. Its fairly reasonable to assume that post political parties are progressive to some degree. Its somehow become 'a bad thing' to consider 'treating other people how you'd like to be treated yourself'. Somehow, you seem to have slipped into the idea that being progressive is the same as being the kind of fktard who shouts racism when you use the word black to describe a colour. A bit like being called a Liberal is an insult (yeah, take that, with your reasoned pragmatism and solutions based in rational discourse.). All citizens should have the same rights and expectations in law isn't particularly progressive either. Especially, when you consider the Republican views often being reported regarding women's rights, ethnic minorities, gay people etc.** Just today we hear the presidents solicitor general [Link] and press secretary [Link] stating that Trump would have no problem with businesses hanging antigay signs that explicitly state they don't serve LGBT customers. Some would have us back to the days of 'no blacks' signs before they stopped rattling on about 'progressives'. But of course this constant nod and wink to those kept onside by this kind of thing is all a dream... Edited by wordup (07 Dec 2017 5.47pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

wordup

07 Dec 17 5.42pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Is progressive what the Alt-Right has adopted because they can't really call Democrats socialist or communists.

Its fairly reasonable to assume that post political parties are progressive to some degree. Its somehow become 'a bad thing' to consider 'treating other people how you'd like to be treated yourself'.

Somehow, you seem to have slipped into the idea that being progressive is the same as being the kind of f**ktard who shouts racism when you use the word black to describe a colour.

A bit like being called a Liberal is an insult (yeah, take that, with your reasoned pragmatism and solutions based in rational discourse.).

All citizens should have the same rights and expectations in law isn't particularly progressive either.

Especially, when you consider the Republican views often being reported regarding women's rights, ethnic minorities, gay people etc.

Just today we hear the presidents solicitor general [Link] and press secretary [Link] stating that Trump would have no problem with businesses hanging antigay signs that explicitly state they don't serve LGBT customers. Some would have us back to the days of 'no blacks' signs before they stopped rattling on about 'progressives'. But of course this constant nod and wink to those kept onside by this kind of thing is all a dream...

Edited by wordup (07 Dec 2017 5.47pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston Houston 07 Dec 17 5.49pm
Back on topic, Al Franken today resigned his seat in the Senate. The calls for him to go had become too significant - including almost all of his Democratic colleagues in the Senate. Franken has been credibly accused of sexual harassment (with more accusers coming forward just yesterday) so, as much as I have admired his political career and laughed at his jokes, his position was rightly untenable. This throws into stark relief the difference between the Democratic Party, who's thrown out everyone from Anthony Weiner to Al Franken - basically purging its ranks of known and credibly accused offenders - and the Republican Party which is protecting Donald Trump, working to elect Roy Moore and using tax-payer dollars to pay off the victim of US Rep. Blake Farenthold's unwanted sexual fantasies. [Link] I suspect that those Republican politicians cheering Franken's demise will come to regret it as this will become a very large cudgel with which Democrats will beat them. We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.
Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston

Houston 07 Dec 17 5.49pm

Back on topic, Al Franken today resigned his seat in the Senate. The calls for him to go had become too significant - including almost all of his Democratic colleagues in the Senate. Franken has been credibly accused of sexual harassment (with more accusers coming forward just yesterday) so, as much as I have admired his political career and laughed at his jokes, his position was rightly untenable.

This throws into stark relief the difference between the Democratic Party, who's thrown out everyone from Anthony Weiner to Al Franken - basically purging its ranks of known and credibly accused offenders - and the Republican Party which is protecting Donald Trump, working to elect Roy Moore and using tax-payer dollars to pay off the victim of US Rep. Blake Farenthold's unwanted sexual fantasies. [Link]

I suspect that those Republican politicians cheering Franken's demise will come to regret it as this will become a very large cudgel with which Democrats will beat them.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert a moderator to this post

wordup 07 Dec 17 5.55pm
Originally posted by Ray in Houston Back on topic, Al Franken today resigned his seat in the Senate. The calls for him to go had become too significant - including almost all of his Democratic colleagues in the Senate. Franken has been credibly accused of sexual harassment (with more accusers coming forward just yesterday) so, as much as I have admired his political career and laughed at his jokes, his position was rightly untenable. This throws into stark relief the difference between the Democratic Party, who's thrown out everyone from Anthony Weiner to Al Franken - basically purging its ranks of known and credibly accused offenders - and the Republican Party which is protecting Donald Trump, working to elect Roy Moore and using tax-payer dollars to pay off the victim of US Rep. Blake Farenthold's unwanted sexual fantasies. [Link] I suspect that those Republican politicians cheering Franken's demise will come to regret it as this will become a very large cudgel with which Democrats will beat them. Ted Cruz's take on this has to be seen to be believed. [Tweet Link] Edited by wordup (07 Dec 2017 5.56pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

wordup

07 Dec 17 5.55pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

I suspect that those Republican politicians cheering Franken's demise will come to regret it as this will become a very large cudgel with which Democrats will beat them.

Ted Cruz's take on this has to be seen to be believed.

[Tweet Link]

Edited by wordup (07 Dec 2017 5.56pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston Houston 07 Dec 17 6.05pm
Originally posted by wordup Ted Cruz's take on this has to be seen to be believed. I am looking forward to voting against Rafael Cruz in 11 months' time (but who's counting?). This extreme example of cognitive dissonance reminds me of Cruz' bid for the Presidency. He and his supporters had claimed that Obama was not eligible to the President because he was secretly born in Kenya (to a Kenyan father and American mother), which of course isn't true because he was born in Hawaii. However, the overseas birth conspiracy theory was the only way they could argue that Obama would not be eligible under the Constitution (which even then is not true because his American mother trumps all). Cruz and his supporters never doubted that he was eligible to be President. However, Cruz himself was born to a Cuban father and American mother in Canada. By their own test, Cruz was not eligible. Watching them twist into pretzels of logic over this was worth the price of admission. Also, Cruz eating his own bogey on national TV was pretty good too. [Link] Edited by Ray in Houston (07 Dec 2017 6.06pm) We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.
Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston

Houston 07 Dec 17 6.05pm

Originally posted by wordup

Ted Cruz's take on this has to be seen to be believed.

I am looking forward to voting against Rafael Cruz in 11 months' time (but who's counting?).

This extreme example of cognitive dissonance reminds me of Cruz' bid for the Presidency. He and his supporters had claimed that Obama was not eligible to the President because he was secretly born in Kenya (to a Kenyan father and American mother), which of course isn't true because he was born in Hawaii. However, the overseas birth conspiracy theory was the only way they could argue that Obama would not be eligible under the Constitution (which even then is not true because his American mother trumps all).

Cruz and his supporters never doubted that he was eligible to be President. However, Cruz himself was born to a Cuban father and American mother in Canada. By their own test, Cruz was not eligible. Watching them twist into pretzels of logic over this was worth the price of admission. Also, Cruz eating his own bogey on national TV was pretty good too. [Link]

Edited by Ray in Houston (07 Dec 2017 6.06pm)

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 07 Dec 17 6.43pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Is progressive what the Alt-Right has adopted because they can't really call Democrats socialist or communists. Its fairly reasonable to assume that post political parties are progressive to some degree. Its somehow become 'a bad thing' to consider 'treating other people how you'd like to be treated yourself'. Somehow, you seem to have slipped into the idea that being progressive is the same as being the kind of f**ktard who shouts racism when you use the word black to describe a colour. A bit like being called a Liberal is an insult (yeah, take that, with your reasoned pragmatism and solutions based in rational discourse.). All citizens should have the same rights and expectations in law isn't particularly progressive either. Especially, when you consider the Republican views often being reported regarding women's rights, ethnic minorities, gay people etc. I described my issues with progressivism when asked to describe them by WordUp I think...or was it Tome? Anyway, when you say that progessisivism is just being liberal....I think you are ignoring the reality that liberalism isn't cultural marxism and a lot of progressive views contain that. As I described there the root of some of its tenets are perfectly valid in my estimation. However, much in the same way that PC speech grew from civility...... progressivism.....has become a mutation and a philosophy that is far more problematic than the problems it thinks it solves. Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Dec 2017 7.55pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

07 Dec 17 6.43pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Is progressive what the Alt-Right has adopted because they can't really call Democrats socialist or communists.

Its fairly reasonable to assume that post political parties are progressive to some degree. Its somehow become 'a bad thing' to consider 'treating other people how you'd like to be treated yourself'.

Somehow, you seem to have slipped into the idea that being progressive is the same as being the kind of f**ktard who shouts racism when you use the word black to describe a colour.

A bit like being called a Liberal is an insult (yeah, take that, with your reasoned pragmatism and solutions based in rational discourse.).

All citizens should have the same rights and expectations in law isn't particularly progressive either.

Especially, when you consider the Republican views often being reported regarding women's rights, ethnic minorities, gay people etc.

I described my issues with progressivism when asked to describe them by WordUp I think...or was it Tome? Anyway, when you say that progessisivism is just being liberal....I think you are ignoring the reality that liberalism isn't cultural marxism and a lot of progressive views contain that.

As I described there the root of some of its tenets are perfectly valid in my estimation. However, much in the same way that PC speech grew from civility...... progressivism.....has become a mutation and a philosophy that is far more problematic than the problems it thinks it solves.

Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Dec 2017 7.55pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 07 Dec 17 6.55pm
Originally posted by wordup Just today we hear the presidents solicitor general [Link] and press secretary [Link] stating that Trump would have no problem with businesses hanging antigay signs that explicitly state they don't serve LGBT customers. Some would have us back to the days of 'no blacks' signs before they stopped rattling on about 'progressives'. But of course this constant nod and wink to those kept onside by this kind of thing is all a dream... Edited by wordup (07 Dec 2017 5.47pm) There are actually serious questions on conscience and forced labour here. I've never been comfortable with the 'cake' verdict here for example. There needs to be some compromise between the two principles and I don't think it was found. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

07 Dec 17 6.55pm

Originally posted by wordup

Edited by wordup (07 Dec 2017 5.47pm)

There are actually serious questions on conscience and forced labour here.

I've never been comfortable with the 'cake' verdict here for example. There needs to be some compromise between the two principles and I don't think it was found.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

wordup 07 Dec 17 7.34pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays There are actually serious questions on conscience and forced labour here. I've never been comfortable with the 'cake' verdict here for example. There needs to be some compromise between the two principles and I don't think it was found. A balance needs to be struck in this regard, but do you or do you not think it's acceptable for entire classes or categories of people to be excluded from local businesses?
Alert a moderator to this post

wordup

07 Dec 17 7.34pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

There are actually serious questions on conscience and forced labour here.

I've never been comfortable with the 'cake' verdict here for example. There needs to be some compromise between the two principles and I don't think it was found.

A balance needs to be struck in this regard, but do you or do you not think it's acceptable for entire classes or categories of people to be excluded from local businesses?

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 07 Dec 17 7.49pm
Originally posted by wordup A balance needs to be struck in this regard, but do you or do you not think it's acceptable for entire classes or categories of people to be excluded from local businesses? You mean like nightclubs that exclude tramps. Fashion magazines exclude ugly girls or ugly short fat squat ones. Like you make friends with those with personality attributes that fit in with your preferred types and not with other types. Like we find, 'our types' attractive......long legs, blondes...whatever it is. Essentially I'm saying that discrimination is life. Should a business be able to advertise that because you bang the same sex as you or have a certain skin colour that they don't want you......No...I think that's too far. Do I think they should be able to come up with some bulls*** excuse not to make a cake they don't like.....yeah....that's too far the other way. There's always the shop down the way happy for the trade. This particular case really screwed with my head because there are two principles at play here and there needed to be a better solution. Apparently the Church gets to turn it's nose up at gay weddings but don't be religious and run a bakery refusing that cake! However, I don't want 'no blacks' or 'no gays' signs in Hotel windows either. Maybe if they are like this they should advertise themselves as Christian or Islamic bakeries or whatever and get the same loophole the Churches do. I don't konw....I'm not comfortable with that either....this one genuinely fecks with my head. Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Dec 2017 7.51pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

07 Dec 17 7.49pm

Originally posted by wordup

A balance needs to be struck in this regard, but do you or do you not think it's acceptable for entire classes or categories of people to be excluded from local businesses?

You mean like nightclubs that exclude tramps.

Fashion magazines exclude ugly girls or ugly short fat squat ones.

Like you make friends with those with personality attributes that fit in with your preferred types and not with other types.

Like we find, 'our types' attractive......long legs, blondes...whatever it is.

Essentially I'm saying that discrimination is life. Should a business be able to advertise that because you bang the same sex as you or have a certain skin colour that they don't want you......No...I think that's too far.

Do I think they should be able to come up with some bulls*** excuse not to make a cake they don't like.....yeah....that's too far the other way. There's always the shop down the way happy for the trade.

This particular case really screwed with my head because there are two principles at play here and there needed to be a better solution.

Apparently the Church gets to turn it's nose up at gay weddings but don't be religious and run a bakery refusing that cake!

However, I don't want 'no blacks' or 'no gays' signs in Hotel windows either. Maybe if they are like this they should advertise themselves as Christian or Islamic bakeries or whatever and get the same loophole the Churches do.

I don't konw....I'm not comfortable with that either....this one genuinely fecks with my head.

Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Dec 2017 7.51pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 07 Dec 17 7.58pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays You mean like nightclubs that exclude tramps. Fashion magazines exclude ugly girls or ugly short fat squat ones. Like you make friends with those with personality attributes that fit in with your preferred types and not with other types. Like we find, 'our types' attractive......long legs, blondes...whatever it is. Essentially I'm saying that discrimination is life. Should a business be able to advertise that because you bang the same sex as you or have a certain skin colour that they don't want you......No...I think that's too far. Do I think they should be able to come up with some bulls*** excuse not to make a cake they don't like.....yeah....that's too far the other way. There's always the shop down the way happy for the trade. This particular case really screwed with my head because there are two principles at play here and there needed to be a better solution. Apparently the Church gets to turn it's nose up at gay weddings but don't be religious and run a bakery refusing that cake! However, I don't want 'no blacks' or 'no gays' signs in Hotel windows either. Maybe if they are like this they should advertise themselves as Christian or Islamic bakeries or whatever and get the same loophole the Churches do. I don't konw....I'm not comfortable with that either....this one genuinely fecks with my head. Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Dec 2017 7.51pm) Mild discrimination is everywhere and part of life I concur but overt bigotry, and that's what the cake issue is about as they weren't being asked to oversee the ceremony but just to put some flour, eggs and sugar together but refused, is much more dangerous and repugnant and should be illegal in all its guises. Those bakers despised gay people via their religion and they were rightly taken to task. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 07 Dec 17 7.58pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

You mean like nightclubs that exclude tramps.

Fashion magazines exclude ugly girls or ugly short fat squat ones.

Like you make friends with those with personality attributes that fit in with your preferred types and not with other types.

Like we find, 'our types' attractive......long legs, blondes...whatever it is.

This particular case really screwed with my head because there are two principles at play here and there needed to be a better solution.

Apparently the Church gets to turn it's nose up at gay weddings but don't be religious and run a bakery refusing that cake!

I don't konw....I'm not comfortable with that either....this one genuinely fecks with my head.

Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Dec 2017 7.51pm)

Mild discrimination is everywhere and part of life I concur but overt bigotry, and that's what the cake issue is about as they weren't being asked to oversee the ceremony but just to put some flour, eggs and sugar together but refused, is much more dangerous and repugnant and should be illegal in all its guises.

Those bakers despised gay people via their religion and they were rightly taken to task.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post