Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (13660)	5/17/2001 1:22:22 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Though I rather doubt, even though it's the "done" thing, that we will find Bush accepting sexual favors from his underlings in the white house offices. Oh, so favoritism is OK as long as it doesn't involve sex? Or maybe just BJs from interns in the Oval Office? Karen

To: The Philosopher who wrote (13660)	5/17/2001 1:43:03 PM
From: Mac Con Ulaidh	Respond to of 82486

>>Though I rather doubt, even though it's the "done" thing, that we will find Bush accepting sexual favors from his underlings in the white house offices.<< Maybe he could just have sexual flirtations online. Would that be better? More faithful? Less embarassing to the nation than in the White House office? Let's just find posts by him talking about his "talented tongue" online somewhere. Yah, that'll be better. And it is questionable whether or not what Ashcroft is doing is acceptable under the provisions of his employment.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (13660)	5/17/2001 2:06:51 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

If you can give me a statute citation and a specific statement of something he has done which violates that statute, I will be on your side instantly. You'll find the merit principles at 5 U.S.C Section 2301(b). In the specific situation I mentioned, the fallout from the religious activity manifested itself primarily as a gender feud. The environment was clearly hostile--people were not playing nicely together. The "cult," a Fundamentalist Christian group, had a barefoot/pregnant/kitchen point of view. Numerous people that I interviewed expressed the attitude that women should not be occupying positions in that organization at the expense of male candidates (and other equally enlightened perspectives). Oddly <g>, all the management positions in the organization were filled by men, allegedly group members, despite the obvious qualifications of a number of women. Male engineers purposely mislead female spokespersons regarding technical information to be passed along to the public because they resented their role. The engineers told me so. And then there was the morale-induced loss of quality and productivity, the grievance time and expense, my time, etc., etc. that was being paid for by the taxpayers to sort out the mess rather than on the functions for which they were budgeted. Yeah, great management. I don't have enough information to know if there's anything illegal going on at Justice. Unlike you, I don't think technical legality is the point. I know enough, like Steven, to recognize both a management red flag and rudeness. Karen

To: The Philosopher who wrote (13660)	5/17/2001 9:30:41 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Though I rather doubt... that we will find Bush accepting sexual favors from his underlings in the white house offices. To be honest, I can't see Cheney going for that either. Ashcroft? Well, you know what they say... Brothers, let us kneel down. And pray. LOL. That should split the vote, as it were. ComPassionate Conservatism. Hypothetically, of course, such would be far better than oligarchal corruption, pursuing policies designed to enrich a few favoured supporters who happen to run powerful companies controlling natural resources. After all, only the most amoral of leaders would ever grant special dispensations to override previous laws and irreparably despoil pristine nature reserves? Only someone completely corrupted by wealth and power could consider designing national policy so that even more wealth would accrue to their own financial backers, with minimal short-term benefit to anyone else and with major long-term costs and detriments to his own nation? Right? ... Right?