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.

Pastimes : Sex, Lies, and Audiotape, or . . . -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PeterGx who wrote (61)	1/24/1998 9:14:00 PM
From: Diane	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 94

still think that we ought to differentiate between "sexual indiscretions" and "sexual harrassment". While, undoubtedly, the second should NOT be tolerated, the first is a matter of interpretation and preference. I disagree. Whether a person is gay or straight, "sexual indiscretions" with subordinates, right in the office, show an immense lack of judgment, and it should be an option for a boss, in this case the American public, to fire the creep. Once elected to office, it may even be somewhat unfair do "fire" him based on these preferences. I would agree that people who voted for him have little room to complain about his behavior, because there was plenty of evidence even before the first election that he was the way we now know him to be. But I'm not one of the people who voted for him. I don't know exactly what you mean by "broken marriages" I meant divorces, but I'd also include marriages that are together only for the sake of the children or for politics or some other reason besides love and respect for ones spouse. It gives a person more choices and power over their own life, and that is good; and if it is good for the individual it cannot be bad for society. I won't say that people should stay in marriages where there have been "sexual indiscretions". My point is that if there were less indiscretions, there would be less need for people to make that kind of choice. The best place to raise kids is in a happy marriage. And well raised kids are the makings for a good society. And there's not a lot govt. programs can do, even though they keep trying, to make up for the lack of happy, supportive parents. Maybe if you cite specific "social problems" How about Dad's that don't pay child support forcing even more Mom's to go into the work place, often at low wages that necessitate sub-standard child care or latch-key kids, who end up getting in to trouble because of lack of supervision, which in turn results in increased jail populations and more illegitimate babies which just repeats the cycle.... How about Dad's that don't pay child support, which in turn clogs up the courts which in turn takes the courts time away from things like robberies and drive-by shootings which makes it less safe to walk the streets, and all this, plus the single moms who end up on welfare, also increase our taxes so much that it's really hard to live on one income, which forces more moms into the workplace which creates more latch-key kids .... (see above paragraph) I also know that many kids in divorce situations see very little of one of their parents (usually Dad) which means they have to look to people like the President for their role models, which just repeats the cycle.....