Still a private affair. And, don't tell me that that's not the way to run a business. You don't have to look deep among the major boardrooms in the country to find examples of successful adulterers. :lol:

 

Adding this:

 

As an owner of a business, I would definitely have to take disciplinary action against the manager. But, that doesn't mean that I would have to fire him, or feel his job performance relative to the success of my company was less because of his inappropriate actions. At the same time, the same disciplinary measures would have to apply to the intern as well. Equality, you know.

IMO, you would be a fool if you did not terminate the manager immediately, along with the intern. Whatever managerial skills your employees have, the described conduct would open the company up to a huge potential liability and the public disclosure of the case and how you handled it would do irreparable harm to the company's reputation.

Stop it! Next you'll have them saying she was a victim! :lol:

If Monica is a victim, it's because of Linda Tripp ...

Well, there are certain conditions that I would have to meet, though.

 

There would have to be a very clear, and unimpeachable policy stating that such an action were an offense subject to immediate termination.

 

Now, most corporations have that, but you are also well served to ensure there are signatures on file that they've been informed and understand.

 

Not sure...is there a presidential employment handbook? It doesn't seem there's a law against what they did.

If Monica is a victim, it's because of Linda Tripp ...

 

 

I'm not talking about Monica...I'm talking about Linda!

Well, there are certain conditions that I would have to meet, though.

 

There would have to be a very clear, and unimpeachable policy stating that such an action were an offense subject to immediate termination.

 

Now, most corporations have that, but you are also well served to ensure there are signatures on file that they've been informed and understand.

 

Not sure...is there a presidential employment handbook? It doesn't seem there's a law against what they did.

President Clinton was not impeached for having an affair on company property. He was impeached for lying under oath. My guess is that committing perjury while testifying about events that occurred in an employee's workplace would be grounds for termination in almost any company in this country.

President Clinton was not impeached for having an affair on company property. He was impeached for lying under oath. My guess is that committing perjury while testifying about events that occurred in an employee's workplace would be grounds for termination in almost any company in this country.

 

Some tend to forget that part of the equation:rolleyes: By the way wasn't Ohio's Attorney General just forced out of office for having an affair at the office?

My problem with it is WHERE it happed. That made it an issue to every American IMO, or at least should have.

I agree. He disgraced the dignity of the office. He then lied to CONGRESS. That is a crime...not a marital issue. He does not deserve the least bit of respect in my opinion.

Tell me how Clinton's actions hurt the average (or above average American, if you are insulted to be included in "average") American? Did it cost the taxpayers billions of dollars? Did it cause people to lose their lives because of it's lack of planning, reluctance to wait for all the facts to be in? Cause the destabilazation of the economy? Create a need to prop up a foreign nation for generations to come? Cause grief to come to the families of those killed?

 

Maybe I'm jaded. I wasn't disillousioned by an extra-marital affair in the workplace. I pretty much said "Well, he's a man....it doesn't surprise me."

It should. Are you suggesting that this is the norm for all men?

 

As for what his criminal action did, it lessened the respect for the office of the president and embarrassed this country in the international community.

 

As for the accusations regarding Bush's motives, that is absolutely 100% wrong. I know Bush was inept -- he's among my least favorite presidents. But I get really tired of hearing people parroting the moveon.org talking points. He may have been wrong on the Iraq situation; but he was not motivated by selfish or evil motives as the left wants to believe.

It should. Are you suggesting that this is the norm for all men?

Seriously...you ask me that question? :lol:

 

As for what his criminal action did, it lessened the respect for the office of the president and embarrassed this country in the international community.

I'll tell you what....what Bush has done is criminal to me. He's not only embarassed the country with his inept, bullying, act now, apologize never attitude. He has flat out lied about the reason we are in Iran to begin with. He's worsened that by conveniently changing that reason when the truth starts to catch up with him. Question...do you have less respect for the office of the president now that Bush occupies the office, because of what Clinton did?

 

As for the accusations regarding Bush's motives, that is absolutely 100% wrong. I know Bush was inept -- he's among my least favorite presidents. But I get really tired of hearing people parroting the moveon.org talking points. He may have been wrong on the Iraq situation; but he was not motivated by selfish or evil motives as the left wants to believe.

Well, I've never even been to moveon.org. But, I was saying the same things I'm saying now, back before we started "Shocking and Aweing". I firmly believe he's motivated by personal interests. I believe he didn't wait to fully inform himself, and that he was convinced he'd be right. Then as time wore on, and it was disproven that there were no WMD, he changed his tune, because he was in over his head. His words are words of bravado, not bravery.

 

And, on a tangent.....to further illustrate ways Bush embarrasses this country, listen to a few clips from some of his speeches. They're thigh-slappin' funny! :lol:

He may have been wrong on the Iraq situation; but he was not motivated by selfish or evil motives as the left wants to believe.

No, he just played on the fears on the people of this country to sell a needless war in Iraq. That's just as bad in my book ...

No, he just played on the fears on the people of this country to sell a needless war in Iraq. That's just as bad in my book ...

Nope, he reacted to the situation as he perceived it.

Seriously...you ask me that question? :lol:

Well...I was thinkin' about it.

I'll tell you what....what Bush has done is criminal to me. He's not only embarassed the country with his inept, bullying, act now, apologize never attitude. He has flat out lied about the reason we are in Iran to begin with. He's worsened that by conveniently changing that reason when the truth starts to catch up with him. Question...do you have less respect for the office of the president now that Bush occupies the office, because of what Clinton did?l:

How could it be "criminal" when he was simply doing what he "thought" was the right thing for the country? :eek:

 

What Clinton did was what he "thought" was right for his libido...and then what he thought was the only way to save his neck -- perjury.

 

Totally apples and oranges.

 

To answer your question, my respect for the office (if not the office holder) was restored on Inauguration Day 2001.

How could it be "criminal" when he was simply doing what he "thought" was the right thing for the country? :eek:

 

What Clinton did was what he "thought" was right for his libido...and then what he thought was the only way to save his neck -- perjury.

 

Totally apples and oranges.

 

To answer your question, my respect for the office (if not the office holder) was restored on Inauguration Day 2001.

 

 

Bush did what he thought would make him look powerful. A president concerned about doing the right thing for his country at the time would have been much more cautious and waited for all the facts before bombing the hell out of Baghdad.

Bush did what he thought would make him look powerful. A president concerned about doing the right thing for his country at the time would have been much more cautious and waited for all the facts before bombing the hell out of Baghdad.

...