Yes, Follow the Way - please do
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Bill O’Reilly and the Right’s Morality Problem
- Thread starter Rolfe
- Start date
- Status
Yes, Follow the Way - please do
Bill O’Reilly and the Right’s Morality Problem ~
Sexual harassment charges ~ is akin to abuse charges ~
The "charges" carry the weight with the public at large, and the "what exactly" often becomes obscure.
And the "employer" can as well be charged for negligence, IF someone makes a charge, and the employer does not satisfy the one making the charges, per discipline.
"Although most people think that sexual harassment involves conduct of a sexual nature, based on a study of case law, this is not true." Sexual Harassment Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
It's a pretty nifty game ~ that has numerous options for charges ~ and can almost always handsomely increase the bank account of the one making the "charges".
"Sexual harassment includes acts that are not overtly sexual but rather are directed at individuals based on their gender. Therefore, profanity or rude behavior that is gender-specific may create a work environment that legally supports claims of sexual harassment." Sexual Harassment Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
Sexual harassment charges ~ is akin to abuse charges ~
The "charges" carry the weight with the public at large, and the "what exactly" often becomes obscure.
And the "employer" can as well be charged for negligence, IF someone makes a charge, and the employer does not satisfy the one making the charges, per discipline.
"Although most people think that sexual harassment involves conduct of a sexual nature, based on a study of case law, this is not true." Sexual Harassment Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
It's a pretty nifty game ~ that has numerous options for charges ~ and can almost always handsomely increase the bank account of the one making the "charges".
"Sexual harassment includes acts that are not overtly sexual but rather are directed at individuals based on their gender. Therefore, profanity or rude behavior that is gender-specific may create a work environment that legally supports claims of sexual harassment." Sexual Harassment Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
Last edited:
And WHAT about Bill's "payoff" ?
Really, what about it?
Is it an admission of guilt? no.
Well then WHY would Bill pay off "accusers", IF he feels he did nothing wrong?
11 million dollars is a whopping sum for the "accusers" purse, eh?
However, Bill could spends thousands of dollars on Attorney fees, thousands of dollars on a court proceeding, and be ordered to pay more that triple 11 millions dollars, IF "a female gender" can "prove" Bill repeatedly called "HER" (gender specific) Darling, complimented "HER" (gender specific), asked "HER" on a date, gave "HER" a nickname, touched "HER" in ANY manner, body slammed "HER" on the desk and attempted to HAVE "sex" with "HER", swore in "HER" presence, told a joke in "HER" presence that was about "FEMALES" (gender specific), or threatened "HER" job because "SHE" was continually late for work or did not perform "HER" job according to "HER" contractual agreement, and on and on.
It's a odd phenomenon that has become acceptable in today's society;
Accuse and let the public decide without facts.
It's MEN BEWARE ~ women with short skirts, low cut tops, foo foo hair and makeup, the smile and wink, IN THE WORK PLACE, is NOT a woman who wants to be noticed, or given attention, or talked to "as a woman"....
SHE wants to be JUST LIKE she thinks of YOU...gender-less. LOL
Really, what about it?
Is it an admission of guilt? no.
Well then WHY would Bill pay off "accusers", IF he feels he did nothing wrong?
11 million dollars is a whopping sum for the "accusers" purse, eh?
However, Bill could spends thousands of dollars on Attorney fees, thousands of dollars on a court proceeding, and be ordered to pay more that triple 11 millions dollars, IF "a female gender" can "prove" Bill repeatedly called "HER" (gender specific) Darling, complimented "HER" (gender specific), asked "HER" on a date, gave "HER" a nickname, touched "HER" in ANY manner, body slammed "HER" on the desk and attempted to HAVE "sex" with "HER", swore in "HER" presence, told a joke in "HER" presence that was about "FEMALES" (gender specific), or threatened "HER" job because "SHE" was continually late for work or did not perform "HER" job according to "HER" contractual agreement, and on and on.
It's a odd phenomenon that has become acceptable in today's society;
Accuse and let the public decide without facts.
It's MEN BEWARE ~ women with short skirts, low cut tops, foo foo hair and makeup, the smile and wink, IN THE WORK PLACE, is NOT a woman who wants to be noticed, or given attention, or talked to "as a woman"....
SHE wants to be JUST LIKE she thinks of YOU...gender-less. LOL
Bill O’Reilly and the Right’s Morality Problem
Don't ya get a kick out of such a headline and implication?
"Right's" ~ "Problem" ~ lol Right ~ is a Problem?
"Morality" ~ A problem OF the "RIGHT" ?
Newsflash ~ "Morality" is an individuals "problem".
Newsflash ~ "Morality" has become changed in "meaning" to becoming incumbent on "FEELINGS" on one day, but not the next.
Bill O'Reilly ~ IS the Right's "standard" that everyone ON the Right looks to Bill for "direction" of morality? LOL
In small towns I frequent ~ the store clerks, the restaurant staff, someone holding a door for another, and on and on, almost always comment with a honey, darlin', babe, etc. And then, the real kicker....they invite me to come back again....for more abuse and sexual harassment! LOL
Don't ya get a kick out of such a headline and implication?
"Right's" ~ "Problem" ~ lol Right ~ is a Problem?
"Morality" ~ A problem OF the "RIGHT" ?
Newsflash ~ "Morality" is an individuals "problem".
Newsflash ~ "Morality" has become changed in "meaning" to becoming incumbent on "FEELINGS" on one day, but not the next.
Bill O'Reilly ~ IS the Right's "standard" that everyone ON the Right looks to Bill for "direction" of morality? LOL
In small towns I frequent ~ the store clerks, the restaurant staff, someone holding a door for another, and on and on, almost always comment with a honey, darlin', babe, etc. And then, the real kicker....they invite me to come back again....for more abuse and sexual harassment! LOL
Of course.
Well, let’s talk about Russia. Assume for the sake of argument that it could be shown that the president or people very close to him cooperated with Russia in hacking the Democrats during the election. Technically that’s conduct that happened before the election, so to that extent the president could make a plausible argument that it shouldn’t be considered in his impeachment.
This seems like the most obviously impeachable offense: If you proved that his campaign colluded with the Russians to steal the election, the election would be illegitimate.
Actually, this can be extended into his presidency. Trump fired the lead Dept. of Justice official who was investigating his ties with Russia and colluded with the GOP Representative "leading" the House of Rep. investigation (Rep. Nunes) to block the investigation. This is called obstruction of Justice and was one of the charges leveled at president Clinton. Rep. Nunes was forced to resign as chair of the House commission.
The seven-term GOP Congress member is at the center of a widening scandal over whether he has been collaborating with the White House to shield Trump from the continuing political fallout over the president’s unsubstantiated accusation that President Obama ordered the FBI to tap his phones during the campaign.
The criticism stems from Nunes’s disclosures that he met with an unnamed source at the White House complex who gave him classified information purportedly validating some of Trump’s claims. (To be clear: It doesn’t.)
I don’t think that Trump’s activities are so ordinary that going after him would set a precedent for everybody in office being sought for impeachment. We’re talking about concrete enrichment of the president while in office, which has not been the case for other people and is unlikely to be the case for other presidents in the future. We’re talking about abuses of power with respect to allegations of crimes that have never been undertaken, to my knowledge, by any president in this way. And if something to do with the Russian allegations is shown, we’re also talking about a form of corruption of the democratic process that, with the exception of Nixon, has not been shown of a sitting president. You have to focus on these cases because if you don’t use the impeachment process now, there is a question of what’s the point of having it at all.
Give me a point-by-point refutation of this argument iof you can.
This seems like the most obviously impeachable offense: If you proved that his campaign colluded with the Russians to steal the election, the election would be illegitimate.
Actually, this can be extended into his presidency. Trump fired the lead Dept. of Justice official who was investigating his ties with Russia and colluded with the GOP Representative "leading" the House of Rep. investigation (Rep. Nunes) to block the investigation. This is called obstruction of Justice and was one of the charges leveled at president Clinton. Rep. Nunes was forced to resign as chair of the House commission.
The seven-term GOP Congress member is at the center of a widening scandal over whether he has been collaborating with the White House to shield Trump from the continuing political fallout over the president’s unsubstantiated accusation that President Obama ordered the FBI to tap his phones during the campaign.
The criticism stems from Nunes’s disclosures that he met with an unnamed source at the White House complex who gave him classified information purportedly validating some of Trump’s claims. (To be clear: It doesn’t.)
I don’t think that Trump’s activities are so ordinary that going after him would set a precedent for everybody in office being sought for impeachment. We’re talking about concrete enrichment of the president while in office, which has not been the case for other people and is unlikely to be the case for other presidents in the future. We’re talking about abuses of power with respect to allegations of crimes that have never been undertaken, to my knowledge, by any president in this way. And if something to do with the Russian allegations is shown, we’re also talking about a form of corruption of the democratic process that, with the exception of Nixon, has not been shown of a sitting president. You have to focus on these cases because if you don’t use the impeachment process now, there is a question of what’s the point of having it at all.
Give me a point-by-point refutation of this argument iof you can.
"Well then WHY would Bill pay off "accusers", IF he feels he did nothing wrong?"
Exactly. Generally why does anyone accused of a crime make an out-of-court settlement? Because they consider themselves to be guilty and think they can come out better by making a deal than by standing before a jury. This happens all the time. It's called plea bargaining.
You've got so many facts wrong it's no wonder you're prejudiced.
1. Trump fired the Dept. of Justice figure, a holdover from the Obama administration, for not enforcing his Muslim travel ban, not anything to do with the Russia investigation.
2. Rep. Nunes was not forced to resign as the chairman of the House Intelligence commission, he merely recused himself as the lead investigator of the Russia probe.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Agree. A person holding that position as a TEMPORARY figure, appointed "TEMPORARILY" by Barry's admin.
Permanent status was never afforded her, thus she stirs the pot, she get a minute of notoriety.
Further, no incoming President is held to KEEPING any cabinet members appointed by another President. It is lawfully the right for every President to appoint their own cabinet members, and of course they appoint those whom will recognize their duty to be subordinate to their boss, who is the President.
WASHINGTON — The official leading the Justice Department's investigation into whether President Donald Trump's campaign had ties to Russia's meddling in the 2016 election is leaving her position next month.
Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary B. McCord told the staff of the department's national security division this week she is leaving to pursue other opportunities.
Top national security official to leave Justice Department
"Leaving to pursue other opportunities" is a euphemism for being fired.
Last edited:
Actually, you're thinking about the head Justice dept. official, another Trump firing.
Acting U.S. Attorney General Sally Yates said Monday that she wouldn’t allow the Justice Department to defend President Donald Trump’s order banning immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries, questioning its legality.
http://tinyurl.com/mkpyszd
All the firings and replacements done by Trump do get a bit confusing.
Ya I was - however the principle is the same.
No, it's not. Firing someone who is actively investigating you for an impeachable offense is obstruction of Justice.
So, people get "fired", then stay on the job for another month? Got it.
On Nunes you're correct. He recused himself from the investigation of Trump-Russia interference with the election. He did not resign from his position. But he recused himself under pressure both from Democrats and Republicans. I think he's going to find himself examined as a co-conspirator.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/326184-first-gop-lawmaker-calls-for-nunes-to-recuse-himself
Yes. Actually it happened to me except it was called a layoff. Sometimes people do get escorted out the door immediately but that's rare.
LOL ~ The President is the Executive Officer of the United States. He has the authority to appoint and fire his own executive secretaries! Impeachable offense - you are off base and unknowing of the LAWS.
- Status