Rep. Jackie Speier... announced at a news conference Wednesday that there have been 260 settlements, and an aide to the congresswoman confirmed that those settlements represent the number reached over a period of 20 years....
It is unclear how much of the $15 million is money paid to sexual harassment cases because of the Office of Compliance's complex reporting process.....
१६ नोव्हेंबर, २०१७
"Congress paid out $15 million in settlements. Here's why we know so little about that money."
CNN.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१३३ टिप्पण्या:
It's hush money. Duh! Not much point in paying for silence if you go out and blab your own self now is there?
That's less than $60,000 per settlement. I'm confident that many of the situations were settled merely because the cost litigating the controversy greatly exceeded the cost of settling. I'm NOT saying sexual harassment doesn't happen in Congress. I'm saying that I doubt that all of the 260 were legitimate claims.
"It is unclear how much of the $15 million is money paid to sexual harassment cases because of the Office of Compliance's complex reporting process....."
Yeah, it sounds more like a lack of complex reporting requirements.
260 settlements over 20 years. That's 13 settlements a year.
My God, do they have time to do any legislating at all with all the damn harassment going on?
Who were the harassers?! Name names. No free gropes in Congress!
Um, I think actually us taxpayers paid...
I wonder if this can be FOIA'ed. It should be FOIA'ed.
That seems surprisingly low for 20 years of payments sufficient to keep the complainants hushed.
My question: How many payments are for repeat offenders?
Seeing as this is tax payer money, we deserve to see a full list of the names of those who were involved.
Also important -- there are some 6000 congressional staff that work in DC Chart. And that doesn't include civil service staff that work on capital hill.
It’s a man problem. It’s time men were held accountable for their unwanted aggressive sexual behavior to women. It’s the dawn of a new era men, get used to it. The floodgates have been opened. No more secret hush money, paid for by the tax payers. Enough.
A joke that Congress set up a much different system for themselves. Let them live under the laws they put in place for other employers.
well, I guess we really are going to clean out the swamp. will be interesting when this story breaks.
Release the names of the accused. Let the cockroaches scramble.
My God, do they have time to do any legislating at all with all the damn harassment going on?
LOL'ed reading this.
Years ago I relocated to WA DC for a few months for work. Lived near the Senate office building and hung out with some of the interns and young researchers. Heard a lot of stuff. Both sides of the aisle.
Power attracts shit people.
"Men? I hate you!!!! I hate you all. I hate all men!!!"
Let that hate eat you up inside, Inga.
You deserve your misery.
With Trump’s own baggage, I doubt this is what he meant when he said “Drain the Swamp”.
“Men? I hate you!!!! I hate you all. I hate all men!!!"”
No only men like you. There are plenty of men I love and have loved.
“Let that hate eat you up inside, Inga.
You deserve your misery.”
You sound like Snidley Whiplash.
Pence rule for everyone, until this dies down.
May take a few years.
In the meantime, its going to be difficult for female Congressional staff.
I am guessing the majority are Democrats or the congresswoman would release them.
Any and all cabals are going to have to be either all-male or all-female; mixed conspiracies will suffer communications and security issues.
What is to be done about homosexual members or staff will be an interesting question.
“In the meantime, its going to be difficult for female Congressional staff.”
On the contrary, it’s male Congressional staff that things will get difficult for if they think they can go on as they had in the past.
Are we allowing sexual harassment in these offices? Is that why the taxpayers paid these claims?
If not, why are we paying them? Shouldn't these people pay their own hush money?
"On the contrary, it’s male Congressional staff "
But its the women that are going to miss out on the conspiracies and plots.
All the behind-closed-doors stuff. Because they will have to keep doors open and more than one pair of ears at a time. Men, no problem.
Except for the homosexual thing of course.
This wave of sexual assault awareness and a new intolerance of it, will set the men’s grievence movement back at least a decade, lol.
On the contrary, men are now going to be free to exclude women.
Out of prudence.
“All the behind-closed-doors stuff. Because they will have to keep doors open and more than one pair of ears at a time. Men, no problem.”
Oh those conniving Jezebels.
“On the contrary, men are now going to be free to exclude women.
Out of prudence.”
Good luck doing that as an elected Representative or Senator. Women lawmakers will not allow themselves to be excluded.
Maybe the problem is that Congress is just like every other business.
This is worth a read:
Some companies have all of their employees sign an arbitration agreement, which means any disputes are settled privately with usually no option to appeal. While arbitrators are theoretically independent individuals who are appointed to settle disputes, there is a potential conflict of interest, because the employer pays for the arbitrator. The arbitrator has a vested interest in generating repeat business from the employer or its lawyers, Cleaver said.
A lack of lawsuits also means that in these cases, employers and harassers are not being publicized and the law is not “being pushed forward,” he said.
“In some of these cases, sometimes you win by just bringing the case to court,” Cleaver said. “It’s not always the person who stands up the first time who succeeds.”
Arbitrations and mediations can still be successful, because they are still holding the employer accountable. When employers are faced with paying an employee to settle a case, “you’re hitting them where it actually hurts,” Banks said.
Setting aside that galling definition "successful", that last sentence is where Congress is NOT like another business.
When companies realize they have a problem in their culture that potentially costs them money, they will attempt to remedy it, she said.
“It’s in their best interest to change it,” Banks said. “Not only is it a business decision, it is the right thing to do and will cost them less money.”
Not if it's someone else's money.
Or if the profit margins preclude any reason to care.
Congressional body-cams. It's the only way to be sure.
"Oh those conniving Jezebels."
See, that's the problem.
They CANT be conniving Jezebels, if they can't talk to men in a conniving manner.
Men can carry on conniving.
And conniving is a professional requirement there. In fact that's all they do.
Its like telling a talk show host that she's not allowed to talk.
Buwaya said...
Any and all cabals are going to have to be either all-male or all-female; mixed conspiracies will suffer communications and security issues.
Tammany Hall wasn't also known as the Sons of St. Tammany for nothing.
Seems like spiking cabals is a feature, not a bug.
"Women lawmakers will not allow themselves to be excluded."
Sure, they will be "included". But will they be included?
And those affected will not be "lawmakers", nearly all of whom are old and ugly anyway.
Those who will do not so well will be staff, the courtiers.
The profession depends on access and information. The good stuff.
My assumption, like Gretchen's, is that we don't hear about this because the offenders are Democrats. Thus the Press won't touch it -- and don't tell me the Press doesn't know!
It’s a man problem. It’s time men were held accountable for their unwanted aggressive sexual behavior to women.
How about women, Inga ? Do you read about the epidemic of school teachers molesting young men?
It has been ignored and it was assumed that the boys were happy to get some sex but some of these teachers sound crazy.
There have been some pregnancies and even some attempts to collect child support from parents
How about STDs ? If a teacher is having that much illicit sex, she is probably picking up diseases.
You really have a one track mind, You should get out more.
“Sure, they will be "included". But will they be included?
And those affected will not be "lawmakers", nearly all of whom are old and ugly anyway.
Those who will do not so well will be staff, the courtiers.
The profession depends on access and information. The good stuff.”
You’re having a hard time accepting that things are changing, aren’t you? Not everyone is as nihilistic as you. You’re outlook fits better in a third world country.
"260 settlements over 20 years. That's 13 settlements a year."
When did Weiner serve? He's got to be good for half of those, else he wasnt trying hard enough.
“Do you read about the epidemic of school teachers molesting young men?”
Just rampant, run for your lives boys, your school marm will get you to impregnate her! A daily occurance! Comparable to what is happening to what has been happening in society to women for hundreds of years, yes indeed... in your strange world.
Do you read about the epidemic of school teachers molesting young men?
You're a doctor. You do know what epidemic means.
Instapundit isn't playing statistics. He's playing moral equivalence.
On a larger scale, this is a serious hit against women in professional careers.
There will be a sense of risk in professional relations.
Not because of (in most cases) any intention to offend, but out of apprehension of being misunderstood, or if worst comes to worst, of being open to hostile sexual allegations, should there be some conflict on other grounds (as is often seen in divorce cases). For instance accompanying some political conflict. Why risk this?
Much of everything in any profession is what goes on personally and informally. The reality of getting things done is far more Gemeinschaft than Gesellschaft - to cite, and misuse, Max Weber.
"You’re having a hard time accepting that things are changing, aren’t you?"
Human nature hasn't changed since the Neolithic. Same old animals, we are.
Unknown said...
“Men? I hate you!!!! I hate you all. I hate all men!!!"”
No only men like you. There are plenty of men I love and have loved.
Close family, eh?
11/16/17, 4:22 PM
On a larger scale, this is a serious hit against women in professional careers.
Given that we're talking about Hollywood and Congress, I don't see how it could be worse.
You really need a better argument than "human nature." According to the human nature of 100 years ago, women didn't have professional careers.
"You’re outlook fits better in a third world country."
Skullduggery in third world countries is pervasive, but enormously less rewarding, well funded, and elaborate.
The Washington nexus is by far the most complex environment for this stuff on earth, the mass of interrelated institutions and formal/informal connections between them is an intricate mass beyond human comprehension.
A little study and a little counting of these will reveal the scale of it, and the impossibility of grasping it.
"Michael K said...
You really have a one track mind, You should get out more."
That's probably not possible. Visitation is probably her best bet.
Your tax dollars, hard at work.
We could solve these problems by repealing the 19th Amendment.
Hey - cool. Menendez(D), who used his office to pocket money and sell influence - if off the hook..
another corrupt democrat slides.
Go team D.
"According to the human nature of 100 years ago, women didn't have professional careers."
100 years ago there were very few professional careers at all. Not in the modern sense. But power, influence, relevance are the same regardless of what you are doing.
It doesn't matter whether it is in a network of provincial landowners or among principals, attorneys and regulators in some industry.
According to the human nature of 100 years ago, women didn't have professional careers.
Except the oldest profession.
100 years ago there were very few professional careers at all.
You're begging the question.
There are industries that can subvert equal opportunity, but civil service isn't one of them. And I don't see any evidence that forcing transparency on Washington DC is going to work against women, given that the status quo was certainly not working for them.
"And I don't see any evidence that forcing transparency on Washington DC is going to work against women, given that the status quo was certainly not working for them."
Nothing important is ever negotiated or decided transparently. That's not human.
The status quo always had women as players, where it counted, behind the scenes.
Modernity simply placed more of them in open view. In this sense the status quo was indeed "working for them". Whether this made these people happier than they would otherwise have been - I don't know. I suspect probably not.
That $15 million is all taxpayer money so it isn’t real.
Congress should pass a law that makes Senators and Representatives pay out of their own pockets. Rigghht.
"There are industries that can subvert equal opportunity, but civil service isn't one of them."
This is not the civil service. These are courtiers. People who propose, negotiate and agree on deals. Someone somewhere will sign off on these things, but they aren't usually the people actually working them.
Re Sunshine laws - a usual scenario - this is a publicly accessible session of public "faces" sitting around a table discussing, in a shallow manner, proposals put together previously by other people, and agreeing on compromises and amendments pre-agreed upon by those others behind the scenes.
"On the contrary, men are now going to be free to exclude women"
Absolutely. Men still control most things. The message is clear.
Consider this - The Obamacare act -
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf
And the"reconciliation"
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ152/pdf/PLAW-111publ152.pdf
955 pages, 2.6MB just by itself. But read the thing, and you will notice that the bulk of it is amendments to other documents, tens of thousands of pages worth. All of which are very valuable to various major entities.
This all was assembled and, most important, created, negotiated, by professional staff, behind the scenes, non-transparently. Any claim to transparency on anything substantial in this level of complexity is a fantasy.
" And I don't see any evidence that forcing transparency on Washington DC is going to work against women, given that the status quo was certainly not working for them."
Henry needs to get out more. It's kind of funny watching the lefties who are content with the destruction of the culture.
When it comes to bite you, it won't be so nice.
Not only mostly Democrats, but mostly minority members. That's why it is double secret.
And regarding things like the Obamacare act -
Each line, almost, on that document, amending other documents, has impacts that had to be evaluated, modelled, and decided on by someone, and generally several entities, who had to agree on the change. Taking the thing as a whole its clear that several thousand people had input on it, most of which weren't government employees.
Consider that those thousands of invisible people are your actual government, or at least a little bit of it.
@Michael K -- That's an odd non-sequitur
All you guys have is assertions. At the very least you need to establish one thing:
Where is your evidence that the DC status quo works for women?
"Where is your evidence that the DC status quo works for women?"
Define DC Status quo.
Define "works".
Does it "work" any better for men?
And does it matter if it does?
And, to add, which women?
Payoffs by fiscal year. 2002 and 2007 especially bad years. Mark Foley, Dennis Hastert?
"There are industries that can subvert equal opportunity, but civil service isn't one of them."
Don't count on it. Diversity can be gamed six ways to Sunday and there's any number of interest groups that trump white women. Ironically, this will put a premium on conservative women as they're less likely to invent grievances.
Very odd thread.
At the top, several commenters take the populist anti-government position that names need to be named and taxpayer money denied to the payoffs. That's kind of the kind of reaction I would expect this story to generate here.
Then Unknown throws out red meat, Michael K eats it up, and his response is weirdly pro-secrecy. Do I have that right? Buwaya and Michael K -- is it your claim that exposing sexual harassers and auditing sexual harassment payouts in DC will hurt women's career opportunities?
And if you do believe that -- and clearly that is a morally neutral stance -- is that sufficient reason to overlook the sexual harassment?
@buwaya -- I'm not making any predictions. I'm saying in order for you to claim that exposing sexual harassers makes things worse for women in DC you have to establish a benchmark for what worse represents.
"Buwaya and Michael K -- is it your claim that exposing sexual harassers and auditing sexual harassment payouts in DC will hurt women's career opportunities?"
Yes, probably. It means that treating women like peers will be more risky, more costly. Odds are they will be less likely to be on the "inside" of the decision-making processes, which means less power.
"And if you do believe that -- and clearly that is a morally neutral stance -- is that sufficient reason to overlook the sexual harassment?"
That is a value judgement. Nothing is free. There is a cost to everything. There is no uncomplicated improvement. And, moreover, there is nothing anyone can do about it. There is no power that will halt or divert any of the social processes at work.
The culture of secrecy surrounding sexual harrasment and assault is what has allowed it to go on as long as it is and as rampantly as it has. If the harrassers and assaulters are shown for all the world to see, it’ll be more difficult for the culture to continue. There will be those who passively agressivly say things will get worse for women if the secrecy ends, women won’t buy it, women won’t stand for it. Times are changing. Change is scary, huh?
I predict more male vs female identity politics, including more mostly male and mostly female staffs according to the asserted gender of the Congressional member. It’s certainly not going to lead to the hoped for panacea of leashed males and blameless females.
“Yes, probably. It means that treating women like peers will be more risky, more costly.”
What absolute nonsense. Treating women like peers will ensure women won’t have any grounds on which to accuse you of any wrongdoing, unless you grope and grab your male peers.
I think that some women will suffer setbacks, who would otherwise have had an opening to advance to high positions in lobbying, consulting re regulatory and legislative affairs, and other such careers in Washington or in the counterpart organizations in the semi-government institutions and private industries.
For a business with 10,000 employees and 535 high level managers (Senators and Reps), how many employee settlements do you expect per year? Thirteen at $60k seems reasonable. Businesses also don't want anybody to know what their payouts are or who is responsible. That said, I want to see some names.
“I think that some women will suffer setbacks, who would otherwise have had an opening to advance to high positions in lobbying, consulting re regulatory and legislative affairs, and other such careers in Washington or in the counterpart organizations in the semi-government institutions and private industries.”
A more honest Buwaya would just say, “Be good little women, shut up about the grabbing and then nothing bad will happen to you.” Maybe in a third world country, but not here in the US.
And if you do believe that -- and clearly that is a morally neutral stance -- is that sufficient reason to overlook the sexual harassment?
We are in the midst of an epidemic of hysteria that resembles the "Recovered Memories" hysteria of the 90s and the day care hysteria of the 80s.
So far, the cost has been modest. Gerald Amirault was released on parole from the Bay State Correctional Center on April 30, 2004, 18 years after his conviction.
There was no crime. It was all fantasy.
There is a man still imprisoned who was convinced to confess to a molestation of his daughter that never happened.
the hysteria seems not to be over. At least in Australia.
the story revealed that the news articles last fall didn’t mention, nor was the jury ever told, that Emily’s testimony was based on “recovered memories” that were “repressed” until apparently coaxed to the surface by therapists after she entered a hospital psychiatric ward in 2010. She underwent more than 1,000 hours of therapy with a psychiatrist and weekly meetings with a sexual assault counselor.
The father is in prison for life for injuries that are invisible on the accusing daughter.
But the sisters, both strikingly attractive and now in their twenties, have presented as unfazed since their parents went to prison—at least on their social media accounts. In photos they are laughing, partying on boats and on beaches with their boyfriends, skydiving and posting optimistic platitudes about life. The younger sister, the father’s main target, just graduated from law school. Neither of the young women responded to emails from The Daily Beast.
Of course not. They didn't even have to kill their parents.
The sexual harassment hysteria will end the careers of many accomplished women who will no longer be trusted by make colleagues.
The "Pence Rule" will hereafter be the standard,
At this rate the Congressional approval number is going to plummet.
....Oh wait
“We are in the midst of an epidemic of hysteria that resembles the "Recovered Memories" hysteria of the 90s and the day care hysteria of the 80s.”
Funny how as long as the accusations were all going toward liberals and Democrats, Michael K was all on board. Now that it’s a bipartisan thing, Michael K gets the heeby jeebies.
Predicting a bad outcome is not the same as making a moral judgment.
But I'm unconvinced for multiple reasons:
1. What is the benchmark? Politics (and media, for that matter) has a long history of sexism and hostility to women. By what standard will you judge it to be worse?
2. Secrecy that allows sexual harassment to go unchecked is going to be hostile to most women and some men. That will preclude many people from entering into the field.
3. Sexual harassment is criminal and immoral. On what ethical grounds do you not support exposing it?
4. The institutional/evolutionary argument that proactive action will at once work against women and will be ineffective because social processes immutably go their own course is internally contradictory.
5. Differentiate between short-term and long-term impact. If not now, when?
Consider that the sum of your arguments is to support a Bill Clinton from the right as thoroughly as he was by the left -- and with almost exactly the same excuse: that it is better for women if the predator is left alone.
Argument by analogy. I recognize you.
Interesting everyone assumes the payouts all went to women. Wasn’t Hastert after boys? And he was there for ages.
" Treating women like peers will ensure women won’t have any grounds on which to accuse you of any wrongdoing"
The more men and women interact outside the home, outside the private sphere, the more occasion for this kind of friction. When men and women had mainly-separate spheres this was not an issue. That is simply the result of numbers.
And, moreover, this sort of adjustment to risk (the Pence rule say) is going to happen regardless. This sort of thing cannot be willed away. It will happen whether anyone wants it or not, or even if no-one wants it.
This is not a question of ethics, or behavior, or standards, or education, or anything else of that nature. This is a result of greater forces.
Unknown said...It’s a man problem. It’s time men were held accountable for their unwanted aggressive sexual behavior to women. It’s the dawn of a new era men, get used to it. The floodgates have been opened. No more secret hush money, paid for by the tax payers. Enough.
11/16/17, 4:10 PM
I resent that because it sweeps me up into the guilty. It's too general. Let's get some hard data on the specifics with offenders broken down according to gender, race, religion, and sexual orientation. Only then can we send the most likely to offend cohort(s) to reeducation camps.
“Interesting everyone assumes the payouts all went to women. Wasn’t Hastert after boys? And he was there for ages.”
Not me. See my 6:19 PM comment and link. 2002 and 2007 especially bad years.
Unknown at 700
Snicker. Yes it's Republicans minimizing this stuff. Because Bill Clinton, Al Frankenstein, Weinstein, Affleck, other Affleck, Weiner all GOPers.
“I resent that because it sweeps me up into the guilty. It's too general. Let's get some hard data on the specifics with offenders broken down according to gender, race, religion, and sexual orientation. Only then can we send the most likely to offend cohort(s) to reeducation camps.”
Sorry, but sexual misconduct and assault is a problem that occurs at a vastly higher occurance in males than in females. I’m quite sure the hard data is out there.
Unknown said...It’s a man problem. It’s time men were held accountable for their unwanted aggressive sexual behavior to women. It’s the dawn of a new era men, get used to it.
It's called "Hillary's Revenge" (with apologies to Montezuma).
There seems to be an assumption that all these settlements are for sexual harassment. It could also include racial/gender/orientation discrimination.
I would like to know not just who settled, but what for.
“It's called "Hillary's Revenge" (with apologies to Montezuma).”
Hillary should’ve perpetrated some whoop ass on her hubby and then divorced him in the way of revenge. It would’ve made a better woman out of her.
I would like to know not just who settled, but what for.
Umknown has already implied that it's white, cis-gendered males preying on females. And each of the 240 cases represents a different offender: Serial offenders have been factored out. "It's the dawn of a new era, men. Get used to it."
"1. What is the benchmark? Politics (and media, for that matter) has a long history of sexism and hostility to women. By what standard will you judge it to be worse?"
No idea. Power and those in whom it becomes invested are not picked up by statistics. We are talking "fuzzy" concepts here. If you have a benchmark as to the gender-balance of people with actual power - well, that would be unique.
"2. Secrecy that allows sexual harassment to go unchecked is going to be hostile to most women and some men. That will preclude many people from entering into the field. "
This is a risk of ANY secret (or non-public) system. It is a balance of risk vs opportunity. Its why you have drug dealers who risk prison, or being shot by rivals. Both sides in conspiratorial systems bear risks. Especially so as participants in such systems are by nature much less risk averse than usual. It is far more risky (in every sense) to go on dates with partners found online than with some distant cousin met an a country house dance, vetted and evaluated by entire clans (think Jane Austen).
"3. Sexual harassment is criminal and immoral. On what ethical grounds do you not support exposing it?"
Ethics are irrelevant. What will happen will happen regardless of our wishes.
"4. The institutional/evolutionary argument that proactive action will at once work against women and will be ineffective because social processes immutably go their own course is internally contradictory."
Processes respond to environments. Change the environment and you change behavior. This change in environment is involuntary, it isn't "proactive action", it is one of those "madness of crowds" things. This is happening independent of some formal decision-making process, of any conscious choice, of any vote.
"5. Differentiate between short-term and long-term impact. If not now, when?"
I expect it is now, already. You will not get public feedback for a while, give it a year or so. But when you get it it will be anecdotal.
Funny how as long as the accusations were all going toward liberals and Democrats, Michael K was all on board. Now that it’s a bipartisan thing, Michael K gets the heeby jeebies.
Not true but you are not someone who can hold a discussion based on merits.
All you think about is political dogma.
I have said before than I think there is a Uniparty that are all equally corrupt.
That is why I supported Trump, who sends you lefties into hysterics.
He has many faults but he is not part of the Swamp.
“Unknown has already implied that it's white, cis-gendered males preying on females. And each of the 240 cases represents a different offender: Serial offenders have been factored out. "It's the dawn of a new era, men. Get used to it."”
Yes indeed male, mostly white, but not all cis gendered. Mark Foley and Dennis Hastert come to mind. I’ve said twice now that there could be sexual harassment of males in those settlements.
They have been working so well on College Campuses, let's bring those Star Chambers into the Congress. Guilty !!! Guilty !!! Guilty !!!! You're here because you're Guilty, and you're Guilty because you're here!
“He has many faults but he is not part of the Swamp.”
You really do live in an alternate reality.
What Inga is too obtuse to realize is that in this new era of "Believe every woman!!!!", I as a man will do my best to keep women as far away from me as possible. Safety, right? If a "he said/she said" situation happens, I lose.
So I don't deal with women. I cut them out. Use Mike Pence's rules at all times--never, ever, ever meet with any woman alone. Can't risk it.
Thus, women loses power and influence; because I can't trust them. Promote her or this other guy, who both do good work? Well... I'm not going to get accused of sexual harassment by the guy, most likely. So I pick him. Entirely rational. Who has time to juggle every situation on the basis of "Will she accuse me later?" Best to minimize such situations.
And how can anyone blame me? I'm making sure I cannot harass the poor, innocent woman. She'll never have to worry about it from me, that's for sure.
A rule to live by for everyone in today's aggrieved leftist feminist world. Sucks to have to have another woman or man with you in the confessional booth so the priest can make sure he won't be the next victim of Gloria Allred though....
--Vance
“I as a man will do my best to keep women as far away from me as possible.”
That should be quite easy to do, as I doubt there are too many females buzzing around you.
“So I don't deal with women. I cut them out.”
Good plan. Saves you from the humiliation of female rejection.
"All you think about is political dogma."
Disagree. It's attention-seeking behavior. She may have political interests but her primary motivation is a need to be at the center, to be in the limelight. We feed her addiction when we engage.
We can give her the help she desperately needs either by ignoring her or by discussing her pathologies with others while she listens.
The latter option is more fun.
“We can give her the help she desperately needs either by ignoring her or by discussing her pathologies with others while she listens.”
Yes, please do set the example.
Well, you are right, Inga: no one doubts that you buzz around no man. And I'm sure that being rejected by you is cause for great celebrations, too. Kind of like Amy Schumer rejecting someone--what a relief!
By the way: is having women buzzing around you supposed to be a good thing? I mean, you are here daily arguing that Trump should be impeached for having just that.... now you say it's a good thing. Huh.
Liberal inconsistency--more sure than death or taxes.
--Vance
Well Rabel, you tell others to ignore me, when you yourself don’t, LOL! I’d actually love it if so many of you would stop addressing me.
Would you look at that response time. Impressive. Pavlov would be proud.
You’re addressing me again... I thought you were going to ignore me! Hahahaha! Oy!
Ok I’m off to watch Rachel Maddow. I can’t be bothered with you Trumpists during her show.
Perhaps LLR Chuck's beloved Maddow will enthrall us with even more tax returns and election night constipation faces!
Speaking of money and Congress: Seeing a picture of Senator Menendez, happy near the courthouse steps after the announcement of the mistrial, reminded me of something. Is not Christmas nicer than Easter for those of us who have lived in this difficult world for a long time? While Easter is full of joy, it is, at least in part, something that begins in the joy of a difficultly achieved suspended or commuted sentence, or difficultly achieved mistrial, and no matter how joyful a day Easter Sunday is, one still begins Easter morning metaphorically on the ugly courthouse steps, rejoicing at the good news, but still a little - or even very - shaken at the recent unpleasantness. Christmas, on the other hand, involves someone arriving by night at a beautiful place in the gentle hill country, with gentle animals and a long-awaited child-birth protected by G*d, under beautiful stars, where people one loves and cares about have gathered, with no Good Friday in the recent past to trigger that part in all our hearts that knows what PTSD is or could be.
Anyone who thinks there will be no unintended consequences to the accusation onslaught is a moron. There is always collateral damage, friend and foe.
Unknown wrote: Hillary should’ve perpetrated some whoop ass on her hubby and then divorced him in the way of revenge. It would’ve made a better woman out of her.
And yet she didn't. Instead she blamed "men" in general for their misogyny. Much like you do.
A rule to live by for everyone in today's aggrieved leftist feminist world. Sucks to have to have another woman or man with you in the confessional booth so the priest can make sure he won't be the next victim of Gloria Allred though....
Inga has no idea. It has been so long since a man showed interest in her that she is oblivious to the problems of younger prettier women.
I have three attractive daughters and I do have some concern but they seem to be doing a good job of taking care of themselves,
Not all will do as well but Inga is oblivious. She is watching lesbian Maddow for information.
It's money given to help pretend and perpetuate the illusion that we are the least horny society in history.
Commercial!
Michael, I really hate being mean to you, but you just beg for it sometimes. Are you getting senile? I too have three attractive daughters and I know full well what women go through. As for Rachel Maddow being a lesbian, does that mean you think she can’t be credible? That would make you a homophobe and a bigot. But that’s not news
Women sense my power, and they seek the life essence. I do not avoid women, Mandrake, but I do deny them my essence.
--Vance
Doc Mike: It's unseemly to comment on a lady's sexual orientation. In polite company, we say Rachael Maddow has an unfortunate haircut.
Rachel Maddow’s leftism speaks for itself, Michael K. Remember that William F. Buckley Jr’s greatest regret was saying that Gore Vidal was gay.
The details of these settlements should be public knowledge in the public record. So how do we get this information? Will it require
a lawsuit or suits? Does it fall under FOIA? Who will initiate the required legal moves?
If Maddow and Vidal are self proclaimed homosexuals, how is calling them gay bigoted? I think WFB's regret was that he lost his cool.
If Maddow and Vidal are self proclaimed homosexuals, how is calling them gay bigoted?
Right. Like me meant it neutrally or as a compliment. Dumbass! Jew!!!!
“...how is calling them gay bigoted? I think WFB's regret was that he lost his cool.”
Calling them gay in itself isn’t bigoted. Intimating that they aren’t credible because they are gay is. See the distinction?
Calling them gay in itself isn’t bigoted. Intimating that they aren’t credible because they are gay is. See the distinction?
Lol. Asking a Republican if they can see an important distinction. Right!
If Maddow and Vidal are self proclaimed homosexuals, how is calling them gay bigoted?
Pro tip: If you refer to someone as "lesbian Maddow" or "the Jew Jon Stewart," you're a bigot.
Federal agencies have paid out more than $49 million to groups suing the government under major environmental laws since 2009, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation analysis of the Department of Treasury’s Judgement Fund.
“These settlements happen behind closed doors, with little or no input from affected states, local entities or stakeholders,” Utah Republican Rep. Rob Bishop told the DCNF.
“Citizen suits” are often brought by environmentalists looking to force a federal agency to issue more regulations. Environmentalists not only use such lawsuits to further their own policy goals, they can also get tax dollars, since federal environmental laws allow them to recoup attorneys fees from the government.
Bishop has been one of the biggest critics of environmentalists’ use of “citizen suits” to collude with agencies. They work with agencies like the EPA and the Interior Department to issue new regulations without any input from industry or states. These are called “sue-and-settle” lawsuits.
So what we have here is "rent seeking."
“Rent seeking” is one of the most important insights in the last fifty years of economics. .... The idea is simple but powerful. People are said to seek rents when they try to obtain benefits for themselves through the political arena."
It is kinda cute to watch members of the party of Bill Clinton and John Edwards hector and rant about men in general. I will cheer wholeheartedly for every uni-party scalp taken. Even so we all know this is just setting the table for another assault on Trump. They are preparing the victims now. The collateral damage to tools like Biden and Franken are acceptable to the people who pull the strings and pay the bills.
Inga doesn't believe a word she says. Neither do any of the other leftists here. She voted for Bill Clinton twice. She has proven herself completely amoral and only concerned about power over others. Now she feels morally superior to all men and she means to hold that stick over every man.
And she can't figure out how that will hurt the opportunities of other women. Her need to be morally superior in her own twisted head drives her to tear apart the society we live in. Disgusting.
I see no reason for people to be shocked about this. Watch the defense of Franken. The accuser is already being dismissed because of being a Fox floozy by some places. And he still has his seat. Congress does not have a zero tolerance policy for sexual assault. At least now we know.
Any thread with 128 comments, of which 1 in 4 comes from just one commenter and 4 of 10 come from just two is unreadable. If it takes 20 or 30 entries for either of you to make your point, and it apparently does, maybe you don't have a point.
All I ask as a citizen is the publication of the name of the people on whose behalf theses payments were made.
"No only men like you. There are plenty of men I love and have loved."
Until they chew through the ropes....
Gadfly, worse still was the practice under Obama of regulatory agencies threatening action against corporations and then settling for a fine instead. The fine was then waived if the corp. would donate to one of an approved list of leftist organizations. The leftist orgs. would than use the money to support Dems and leftist causes.
It was govt funding of political agendas.
Gadfly, worse still was the practice under Obama of regulatory agencies threatening action against corporations and then settling for a fine instead. The fine was then waived if the corp. would donate to one of an approved list of leftist organizations. The leftist orgs. would than use the money to support Dems and leftist causes.
It was govt funding of political agendas.
buwaya said...
On the contrary, men are now going to be free to exclude women.
Out of prudence.
***********************************
Not sure about that.
Pence was smeared as "hating women" when he refused to meet with them unless his wife (who he apparently didn't hate) was present.
He was freezing women out of the political process and access to power, supposedly.
Now, when he's challenged overit, he might say, "I'm just trying to keep myself from an "Occasion of Sin."
To which the Harpies will reply, "Ahh, but that just proves there's lust in your heart. Which is JUST AS BAD as actually acting on your horrid male impulses.
So... RESIGN."
It's Pure Prog Playbook, all the way down.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा