Text 49078, 215 rader
Skriven 2007-04-02 10:51:09 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
     Kommentar till en text av bob klahn
Ärende: The Archives
====================
01 Apr 07 10:50, bob klahn wrote to Roy Witt:


 bk>>>  ...

 bk>>>>>  Not really. It was just funny, otherwise trivial. Clinton fooled
 bk>>>>>  around with a consenting female adult.

 RW>>>> While on the public's payroll! If he was my employee and

 bk>>>  He's paid by the year. Annual salary.

 RW>> Does he sleep on the job or does he retire? Does he get
 RW>> paid to sleep?

 bk>  As an elected official there is very little required, mostly
 bk>  he sets his own schedual.

That's cool. I wouldn't want him to have to adhere to a schedule.

 RW>>>> did that during working hours, I would have fired him.

 bk>>>  He did what he did at night and weekends.

 RW>> Wrong...he also did what he did during the day. A little

 bk>  Weekends have days.

He was working days, even weekend days.

 RW>> contradiction on your part here. If he's salaried on a
 RW>> yearly basis, he must be on the job on a yearly basis.
 RW>> Thus, his sexual capers with Mz Lewinski (among others) was
 RW>> on my time.

 bk>  So, if any elected official has sex with his own wife, he's
 bk>  doing it on your time? Please get real.

I don't have a problem with an elected official fucking his own wife on my
time or theirs. I do have a problem with an elected official fucking
someone other than his spouse, on or off my time, but especially on my
time.

 RW>>>> Fraternizing at work with the opposite sex is a no-no
 RW>>>> everywhere in industry. Why not the White House?

 bk>>>  That's a laugh. Fraternizing is common in industry.

 RW>> Laugh all you want, people get fired for it all the time.

 bk>  More often they don't. Unless they are hourly.

The morals in Ohio must be pretty bad.

 bk>>> Most I've ever seen is a supervisor transferred.

 RW>> They were lucky.

 bk>  No, they were typical.

In Ohio.

 bk>>> The only one I ever saw fired was trying to pressure the woman into
 bk>>> it.

 RW>> Many years ago I went to my boss to tell him that I was
 RW>> leaving the company for another job. He said that needn't
 RW>> put in the two weeks I had given them, as he knew I was
 RW>> fraternizing with a gal in the accounting office and he was
 RW>> about to let me go.

 bk>  Unless you were management, or doing it on company time, he was
 bk>  full of it.

I was a supervisor. She worked in a different department. In case you
haven't figured it out yet, an employer or your immediate superior can
fire you for no reason. They may have to give you a legitimate reason, but
they can fire you just because they don't like you.

 RW>> The real reason was that I was fraternizing with his best
 RW>> friend's fiancee.  Not that my firing would have changed
 RW>> that, but he thought it would. My new employer was glad to
 RW>> hear that I was available sooner and I never looked back. I
 RW>> stopped seeing that gal when I felt like it, which was
 RW>> months later.

 bk>  The new employer was the one who got taken.

Nahhh, he wasn't a woman.

 bk> You musta had low standards for women.

At the time, they were kinda like yours are now I suppose.

 RW>>>> Of course, he couldn't do it after normal WH business
 RW>>>> hours, Hillery would have caught him. Which, IMO, would
 RW>>>> have been much better for the US than what actually
 RW>>>> transpired.

 bk>>>  He couldn't do it during normal business hours, no where to
 bk>>>  hide. And no time. It was late or weekends.

 RW>> BS...it was in a private office, during workdays.

 bk>  Weekends are workdays if an elected official decides they are.

So you just admitted that he was doing her on a workday...thanks for
agreeing.

 bk>>>>> Bush got thousands of Americans, and hundreds of thousands of
 bk>>>>> Iraqis killed.

 RW>>>> The Iraqi's got themselves killed and those who were sent

 bk>>>  No, most of them did not. Most of them have been killed while
 bk>>>  going about their honest business.

 RW>> If that is true, they must have been pretty stupid.

 bk>  They live there. They have to go  about their business.

How is that any different than going about their business in Isreal?
Besides the fact that there are no US troops there. Which was your
criteria for bringing up this subject in the first place.

 bk>  Most have no where to go. So, walking down the street going about
 bk>  your honest business and you get killed is not stupid, it's how
 bk>  life is there.

Stupid is as stupid says, I always say.

 bk>>>  60 some in today's paper.

 RW>> Yes, but those aren't Bush's fault. Wrong place at the
 RW>> wrong time.

 bk>  Bush destroyed the law enforcement system there,

LOL! Wrong. LEO's are as plentiful.

 bk> and allowed the outside insurgents in.

Oh, he has a lock on the gate and he turned his back while they cut it and
ran through. I get it now.

 bk> Remember how "democracy is messy"? Well messy means fatal in this
 bk> case.

LOL! Sure.

 RW>>>> to do a job there, knew what the danger was. They are an

 bk>>>  Yeah, but they should not have been sent there. They did not
 bk>>>  hire on to be Bush's private militia.

 RW>> Ahhh, but they're not screaming chickenshit liberals like
 RW>> you.

 bk>  About 70% of them want us out.

No. 70% said they'd like to be home, but they also said that they want to
finish the job before they go.

 RW>>>> all volunteer military. Unlike when the LLWW's sent

 bk>>>  LLWW's? Oh, and they volunteered to protect this country, not to
 bk>>>  push the neo-con agenda in foreign countries.

 RW>> Better bone up on the oath taken by everyone who
 RW>> volunteers. It's not like joining the company you work for
 RW>> where you can quit and go home when it suits you.

 bk>  Which has nothing to do with what I said.

Of course it does.

 bk> Bush used the US military to fight a war for his ego and big oil and
 bk> the neo-con agenda.

Wrong.

 bk>  That is not what the US military exists for.

Right. It exists so that those who volunteer can go to school and get a
nice education, without having to worry about putting themselves in danger
or protecting the citizens who pay their salary. Whoever believes that is
a coward and a traitor.

 RW>>>> 'drafted' kids to Viet Nam. Of course, some of those kids
 RW>>>> ran off to Canada rather than serve. They were probably
 RW>>>> protesting hippy Democrats.

 bk>>>  Very possibly. Now they are probably conservative republicans
 bk>>>  supporting sending other people's children to war. Much like
 bk>>>  Bush.

 RW>> Better than liberals who sent their kids to Canada to avoid
 RW>> fighting the liberal's war in Vietnam.

 bk>  Uh... that is who they are. And it was the conservative's war in
 bk>  Vietnam.

Kennedy, Johnson were conservatives? Now that's a new twist on facts.

heh, heh, heh...

               R\%/itt



The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but
that they know so much that isn't so. - Ronald Reagan

--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)