Does Rand Paul consider himself a Tea Party politician?

 

Anyone? I thought Paul was a Tea Party guy. Am I wrong?

Anyone? I thought Paul was a Tea Party guy. Am I wrong?

 

I don't know if he classifies himself as part of the Tea Party but I think most Tea Party members support him.

You can't claim you respect womens right without respecting women first. It's a very simple concept. That doesn't even dive into the fact Clinton's actions would of denied him access for security clearence in many non-elected government positions because his multiple affairs left him vulnerable to blackmail. In any background check when trying to get higher security clearence on of the first questions they ask and one of the first things they investigate is your infidelity. If your wife can't trust then how can your country with top secrets.

 

Sexual harassment is AN issue, but I don't (today) consider this a women's rights issue. The earlier fight to have sexual harassment has now evolved into a law that protects both genders, as well as by sexual orientation. The focus in this thread, however, has made it abundantly clear that men still feel women's rights issues are centered on sexuality and the assumption that women are somehow more inclined to be abused than men.

 

I also feel that women are still perceived as "the weaker sex" by men. However, I also caution everyone that just because a woman (or man) is involved sexually with someone in a position of power, that does not mean that she or he wasn't a willing participant. And often, they're willing participants until they get dumped, then they cry "sexual harassment". Along with achieving that "right" to a workplace free of sexual harassment, women (in particular) have to accept that they can't participate equally then play the victim when it all goes wrong. Women who do this set back the credibility of the very real issue.

 

I still feel sexual harassment isn't a "women's right". To me, "women's rights" include such things as being considered equally when it comes to hiring practices and pay rates.

I'll give 2 examples:

1) I was a manager interviewing 2 candidates for front line positions. My interviews completed, I went to HR with my choice of the two candidates I was asked to interview. One was an older woman with impeccable customer service skills, calm demeanor and long history serving customers/guests, with great references. The second was a very attractive young lady, very soft spoken, but just not very bright. She was currently working as a hostess in her husband's restaurant. However, her experience did not include any job that involved indpendent problem-solving, in particular, or any responsibility for "on the fly" decision making. I asked HR to extend the offer to the older woman. HR tells me that they won't, and that they are extending the offer to the younger woman because she was attractive and would be a good "presence" at the Front Desk. I objected and debated the point. Eventually they extended offers to both. The younger woman lasted 6 weeks. The older woman stayed 3 years, until she moved to Washington, where her husband's family is.

 

My second example: I was leaving my position at my last job after 10 years. My boss was having a hard time finding a replacement for me, despite me giving 6 weeks notice. I wound up staying 8 weeks to help train the gentleman they eventually offered the position. That gentleman would not sit with me and go through what I was trying to train him to do. He was dismissive of what he considered to be "easy". I went to my soon-to-be former boss and told him that I was having difficulty getting my replacement to train for the job. My boss told me not to worry, that he'd chosen my replacement because "he's into all that computer stuff." Before I finally left, my replacement let me know what they were paying him, which was almost $10K more than I had been paid. Eventually, I left. I got a call from my former boss by lunch time. My replacement had walked out because the job was "too much" for what he was getting paid. My point? My boss had chosen this person because he "liked computer stuff", and paid him more NOT because of his skill set. Given that I worked there for 10 years, and the replacement was one of my co-workers, I can tell you with 100% certainty he was being paid more because he was male, not because he was capable.

Sexual harassment is AN issue, but I don't (today) consider this a women's rights issue. The earlier fight to have sexual harassment has now evolved into a law that protects both genders, as well as by sexual orientation. The focus in this thread, however, has made it abundantly clear that men still feel women's rights issues are centered on sexuality and the assumption that women are somehow more inclined to be abused than men.

 

I also feel that women are still perceived as "the weaker sex" by men. However, I also caution everyone that just because a woman (or man) is involved sexually with someone in a position of power, that does not mean that she or he wasn't a willing participant. And often, they're willing participants until they get dumped, then they cry "sexual harassment". Along with achieving that "right" to a workplace free of sexual harassment, women (in particular) have to accept that they can't participate equally then play the victim when it all goes wrong. Women who do this set back the credibility of the very real issue.

 

I still feel sexual harassment isn't a "women's right". To me, "women's rights" include such things as being considered equally when it comes to hiring practices and pay rates.

I'll give 2 examples:

1) I was a manager interviewing 2 candidates for front line positions. My interviews completed, I went to HR with my choice of the two candidates I was asked to interview. One was an older woman with impeccable customer service skills, calm demeanor and long history serving customers/guests, with great references. The second was a very attractive young lady, very soft spoken, but just not very bright. She was currently working as a hostess in her husband's restaurant. However, her experience did not include any job that involved indpendent problem-solving, in particular, or any responsibility for "on the fly" decision making. I asked HR to extend the offer to the older woman. HR tells me that they won't, and that they are extending the offer to the younger woman because she was attractive and would be a good "presence" at the Front Desk. I objected and debated the point. Eventually they extended offers to both. The younger woman lasted 6 weeks. The older woman stayed 3 years, until she moved to Washington, where her husband's family is.

 

My second example: I was leaving my position at my last job after 10 years. My boss was having a hard time finding a replacement for me, despite me giving 6 weeks notice. I wound up staying 8 weeks to help train the gentleman they eventually offered the position. That gentleman would not sit with me and go through what I was trying to train him to do. He was dismissive of what he considered to be "easy". I went to my soon-to-be former boss and told him that I was having difficulty getting my replacement to train for the job. My boss told me not to worry, that he'd chosen my replacement because "he's into all that computer stuff." Before I finally left, my replacement let me know what they were paying him, which was almost $10K more than I had been paid. Eventually, I left. I got a call from my former boss by lunch time. My replacement had walked out because the job was "too much" for what he was getting paid. My point? My boss had chosen this person because he "liked computer stuff", and paid him more NOT because of his skill set. Given that I worked there for 10 years, and the replacement was one of my co-workers, I can tell you with 100% certainty he was being paid more because he was male, not because he was capable.

 

We will have to disagree because I feel protecting women in the work place from sexual harrasment is part of treating women as equals in the workplace and is a womans right.

Back to Clinton. It's more than the Lewinski scandal...he has a history of "improper" contact with women. I saw a clip with him hugging Grimes as she took the stage at the event. All I kept thinking is...I bet Clinton is thinking "oh yeah, I'd like to hit that". You know, that's not what I should be assuming our President or ex President is thinking when hugging an attractive women. But because of his past actions and his history, it's the first thought that popped in my head.

Back to Clinton. It's more than the Lewinski scandal...he has a history of "improper" contact with women. I saw a clip with him hugging Grimes as she took the stage at the event. All I kept thinking is...I bet Clinton is thinking "oh yeah, I'd like to hit that". You know, that's not what I should be assuming our President or ex President is thinking when hugging an attractive women. But because of his past actions and his history, it's the first thought that popped in my head.

If that was the first thought that popped into your head I figure that was what you were thinking about Grimes too.