Dixie, you sure have been quiet about the meltdown of your canidate Cain... Whatsup?

Jarod said:
A pattern of misconduct is not admissable as propensity evidence.


Federal Rule of Evidence 404
(b) Other crimes, wrongs, or acts

Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are arguing here, Jughead... are you saying the Grand Jury was misinformed of the law and should have not subpoenaed Bill Clinton or asked the question, and therefore, he was justified in giving false testimony to them? What the fuck is wrong with you people lately, you forgot that we have a system and laws, and the people in charge are obliged to follow them? We can't just make shit up as we go along, and 'interpret' the law as we see fit at any given point in time... that's not how things work in a civil society. That's certainly not how the law and the constitution work. I swear, this place turns into the third grade more and more everyday!
 
Dixie said:
I'm not sure what you are arguing here, Jughead... are you saying the Grand Jury was misinformed of the law and should have not subpoenaed Bill Clinton or asked the question, and therefore, he was justified in giving false testimony to them? What the fuck is wrong with you people lately, you forgot that we have a system and laws, and the people in charge are obliged to follow them? We can't just make shit up as we go along, and 'interpret' the law as we see fit at any given point in time... that's not how things work in a civil society. That's certainly not how the law and the constitution work. I swear, this place turns into the third grade more and more everyday!
Click to expand...

Ugh, A grand jury had the right to subpoeana President Clinton, and ask the question. The answer was not however material in the Paula Jones case and thus the answer was not perjury. They get to ask just about any question they want... that does not make the information material to the case and thus an untruthfull answer is not necessarly perjury.
 
Jarod said:
The legal defination is...

1) Creating a hostile work enviorment.
2) Allowing a hostile work enviroment after someone has complained or you otherwise knew about it.
3) Demoting someone or not promoting someone because they refused your sexual advance.
Click to expand...

So you agree with me.
Thanks
 
Jarod said:
Ogling soneome who does not work for you or with you is not sexual harrassment.
Click to expand...

What is sexual harassment?

Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination.The legal definition of sexual harassment is “unwelcome verbal, visual, or physical conduct of a sexual nature that is severe or pervasive and affects working conditions or creates a hostile work environment.”

Unwelcome

Conduct is not sexual harassment if it is welcome.For this reason, it is important to communicate (either verbally, in writing, or by your own actions) to the harasser that the conduct makes you uncomfortable and that you want it to stop.

Conduct Of A Sexual Nature

Many different kinds of conduct—verbal, visual or physical—that is of a sexual nature may be sexual harassment, if the behavior is unwelcome and if it is severe or pervasive. Here are some more examples:

Verbal or written: Comments about clothing, personal behavior, or a person’s body; sexual or sex-based jokes; requesting sexual favors or repeatedly asking a person out; sexual innuendoes; telling rumors about a person’s personal or sexual life; threatening a person

Physical: Assault; impeding or blocking movement; inappropriate touching of a person or a person’s clothing; kissing, hugging, patting, stroking

Nonverbal: Looking up and down a person’s body; derogatory gestures or facial expressions of a sexual nature; following a person

Visual: Posters, drawings, pictures, screensavers or emails of a sexual nature
 
Jarod said:
Ugh, A grand jury had the right to subpoeana President Clinton, and ask the question. The answer was not however material in the Paula Jones case and thus the answer was not perjury. They get to ask just about any question they want... that does not make the information material to the case and thus an untruthfull answer is not necessarly perjury.
Click to expand...

You are wrong.
If he would have said that the information was none of their business, then there wasn't anything they could have done about it; but since he lied, he payed for lying.
 
Dixie said:
Why don't we put it the way that it is? If a Grand Jury in a Federal court asks you a pertinent question material to the case, you are obligated by oath, to tell the truth, otherwise it is known as "perjury" and you can be imprisoned for it. Had Jay Leno asked Bill Clinton if he ever had sex with Monica, then it's not Jay Leno's business, and you are correct, he is not entitled to a truthful answer, but that wasn't the case with Clinton, he was called to give sworn testimony in a lawsuit, and his testimony was crucial to the case. HE LIED UNDER OATH! Now... if you or I had done what Clinton did, we would still be sitting in Federal prison.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with that. I still maintain sexual behavior between two consenting adults is no ones business.

As someone once said, "The law is a ass."
 
apple0154 said:
I'm not disagreeing with that. I still maintain sexual behavior between two consenting adults is no ones business. As someone once said, "The law is a ass."
Click to expand...

LOL, Clinton was immoral, but Cain isn't...
 
Jarod said:
Ugh, A grand jury had the right to subpoeana President Clinton, and ask the question. The answer was not however material in the Paula Jones case and thus the answer was not perjury. They get to ask just about any question they want... that does not make the information material to the case and thus an untruthfull answer is not necessarly perjury.
Click to expand...

If the question was not material to the case, they wouldn't have asked it. If Clinton didn't feel it was their business, he could have said so, he didn't have to lie. Perjury is the giving of false testimony under oath, that is what Clinton was found guilty of by Susan Weber Wright, and ultimately impeached for. So yes... it WAS necessarily perjury.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Just go ahead and keep minimizing this; because I'm sure all the women, on this forum, appreciate your attempts at humor.
Click to expand...

Let's be clear here. According to the Bible women were God's gift to man as God saw how lonely man was in the Garden of Eden. So, if for no other reason to believe in God all one has to do is look at a gal. :) And, yes, I appreciate the "form" of a woman.

Any further questions?
 
According to a couple of polls I've seen, some women don't find Horny Hermans denials very convincing....
 
apple0154 said:
Let's be clear here. According to the Bible women were God's gift to man as God saw how lonely man was in the Garden of Eden. So, if for no other reason to believe in God all one has to do is look at a gal. :) And, yes, I appreciate the "form" of a woman.

Any further questions?
Click to expand...

I can't help which Bible you want to use to justify your behavior; but the one I was taught from said nothing about women being a "gift".

Nice to see you think women should have to be subjected to someone constantly ogleing them.
 
Stand by your man Dixie?

lu5om5-b78873681z.120111104144057000ge7138lhb.1.jpg


Half-Baked-Cain.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top