Text 49133, 429 rader
Skriven 2007-04-04 11:46:41 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
     Kommentar till en text av bob klahn
Ärende: The Archives
====================
03 Apr 07 15:24, bob klahn wrote to Roy Witt:


 bk>>>>>>>  Not really. It was just funny, otherwise trivial. Clinton
 bk>>>>>>> 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.

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

 bk>  Good, cause he doesn't have to.

Ever heard of the word, facetious?

Keep it in mind while you read that one again.

 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.

 RW>> He was working days, even weekend days.

 bk>  He can take a break whenever he wants to.

Sure, he can take one anytime he wishes, but ethically, he wouldn't "have
sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinski."

 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.

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

 bk>  If that's your problem, then your comment about him being on the
 bk>  your time 100% of the time is a fraud.

The only fraud is what you're attempting to make of it.

 bk> Either way, it's not your business.

He's a public servant, a public employee, that makes it my business.

 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.

 RW>> The morals in Ohio must be pretty bad.

 bk>  It's the same pretty much everywhere. Ok, worse in a lot of
 bk>  other places.

Oh, so it's worse than I thought.

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

 RW>>>> They were lucky.

 bk>>>  No, they were typical.

 RW>> In Ohio.

 bk>  It's an international company.

Apparently with locally low moraled Ohio employees.

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

 RW>> I was a supervisor. She worked in a different department.

 bk>  You were a supervisor. What departement she worked in doesn't
 bk>  matter.

That's right. I merely meant to show that I had no influence over her in
her employment, she had her own supervisor.

 RW>> In case you haven't figured it out yet, an employer or your
 RW>> immediate superior can fire you for no reason. They may

 bk>  If you are managment. Or a non-union company, maybe.

Union would imply that I'm not in management. Unions are more specfically
for the blue collar worker who has no skills and needs to have someone
reasure them that they'll be over-paid for as long as the union can
extract blood money from the company.

 bk> If he falsely accused you then you could sue him.

But if I did that, I would be admitting that I'm just like you.

 RW>> have to give you a legitimate reason, but they can fire you
 RW>> just because they don't like you.

 bk>  That's the advantage to a union company, to the owners as well
 bk>  as the workers. A manager has to have a reason to fire someone.
 bk>  The owner doesn't benefit if the manager fires someone just
 bk>  because he doesn't like him.

All a manager has to do to get around those union buttheads is 'make a
case' to fire someone. It takes just a bit of patience, but it's easily
done.

 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.

 RW>> Nahhh, he wasn't a woman.

 bk>  But with the low moral standards, judged by your own standards
 bk>  above, he got taken.

LOL! His morals were lower than yours. He manufactured methamphetamines
on the premises. Come to find out, he belonged to a cartel that
manufactured that stuff all up and down the state of CA and Nevada.

Rather than go to jail when he eventually got caught, he turned states
evidence and testified for the prosecution.

Of course, that spelled the end for him, even though they put him in a
witness protection program. His downfall was that he couldn't stay gone.

They found him stabbed to death in a VW two days after he boldly moved
back into his home.

 bk>>> You musta had low standards for women.

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

 bk>  My standards have always been high. I would never have found a
 bk>  woman who cheats on her committment acceptable.

I believe the 'I would never have found a woman' part.

 bk> She cheats on him she'll cheat on you.

That's why they're called four Fs...

 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.

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

 bk>  There's no rule against doing it on a workday,

There is, if it's on company time. In this case, on my time.

 bk>  for any employee. Either after work or during break time.

That's fine by me. The problem was, they didn't wait that long.

 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.

 RW>> How is that any different than going about their business
 RW>> in Isreal?

 bk>  Is that supposed to be a defense of something or other?

Different situation: There are no US troops there to endanger them. (your
words)

 bk>  No different than going about your business in Israel or
 bk>  Palestinian territories. They all get killed for no good reason.

See above.

 RW>> Besides the fact that there are no US troops
 RW>> there. Which was your criteria for bringing up this subject
 RW>> in the first place.

 bk>  So why did you bring it in?

I didn't, you did.

 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.

 RW>> Stupid is as stupid says, I always say.

 bk>  Yes, so be more careful.

I'll stop reading you and that will put an end to reading stupid says.

 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,

 RW>> LOL! Wrong. LEO's are as plentiful.

 bk>  Yeah, but the system has collapsed. The govt has lost control of
 bk>  the police. And that Bush caused.

Wrong...

 bk>  Oh, and it was the police who killed those people. Revenge for a
 bk>  car bombing.

That means that they're no longer police, they're terrorists.

 bk> Now the police are no longer LEO, they are revenge
 bk>  enforcement officers.

Terrorists.

 bk>>> and allowed the outside insurgents in.

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

 bk>  He was warned they would need almost 400,000 men.

That's a rediculously high number.

 bk> He let them have less than half.

They (the military commanders) got what they asked for.

 bk> Your straw man displays a lack of interest in the truth.

Yeah, I don't hold much hope of ever getting the truth from those LLWWs.

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

 RW>> LOL! Sure.

 bk>  Yes, sure.

facetious again.

 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.

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

 bk>  The said they wanted us to be out within a year. About a year
 bk>  ago.

I don't think so.

 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.

 RW>> Of course it does.

 bk>  No, their oath only requires them to obey orders,

Yeup. And those who don't, don't belong in the military. They belong in
jail.

 bk>  it does not
 bk>  make it right to give them orders to go off an fight and bleed
 bk>  and die for any reason other than the defense of this country or
 bk>  it's legitimate causes. The neo-con agenda and big oil do not
 bk>  qualify as either of those.

That's silly thinking.

 bk>  The military personell serving there are brave and honorable.
 bk>  Those who sent them for the neo-con agenda and big oil are
 bk>  criminals and scum.

No one has sent anyone there for a neo-con (whatever that is) agenda and
the oil companies have no say so.

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

 RW>> Wrong.

 bk>  It is the truth.

It is LLWW bullshit.

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

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

 bk>  The true cowards are those who accuse the men who serve there of
 bk>  cowardice for wanting our forces out within a year.

No, the true cowards are those who spread false rumors that there is such
going on.

 bk> The true traitors are those who want out people to bleed and die for
 bk>  Bush's ego and big oil.

Then you better get that LLWW congress to stop what they're doing. Giving
the enemy a timetable for surrender and retreat from that war is worse,
nigh onto treason.

 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.

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

 bk>  Compared to the "deficits don't matter" and send our troops to
 bk>  fight and bleed and die for big oil conservatives of today, yes,
 bk>  they were.

LOL! You're so full of bullshit, it's getting deep in here.

 bk>  Are you really dumb enought to think that anyone is totally in
 bk>  one catagory or another? Are you really fool enough to believe
 bk>  that having enough liberalism to push civil rights means not
 bk>  being conservative enough to fight a war to stop communism?
 bk>  After all, it was democrats like Truman and JFK and LBJ who took
 bk>  us into the wars against communist governments. Not Nixon or
 bk>  Reagan.

That's for sure. The latter two didn't need to wage a fighting war to
defeat communism...economics beat them.

 bk> Though Eisenhower did get us into Vietnam originally,
 bk>  the right keeps telling me he didn't plan to go very far with
 bk>  it.

It would have been much easir for Kennedy to pull out of Nam, as there was
no troop commitment when he got the ball. No, he escalated it, as did
Johnson...it took someone like Nixon to begin the withdrawal.

 bk>  You really do need to realize the tagline does apply to you.

Fuck you and your taglines...they don't mean shit.

               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)