Text 48939, 107 rader
Skriven 2007-03-29 10:03:43 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
     Kommentar till en text av bob klahn
Ärende: The Archives
====================
29 Mar 07 05:28, bob klahn wrote to Roy Witt:

 bk>  ...

 bk>>>  Not really. It was just funny, otherwise trivial. Clinton fooled
 bk>>>  around with a consenting female adult.

 RW>> While on the public's payroll! If he was my employee and

 bk>  He's paid by the year. Annual salary.

Does he sleep on the job or does he retire? Does he get paid to sleep?

 RW>> did that during working hours, I would have fired him.

 bk>  He did what he did at night and weekends.

Wrong...he also did what he did during the day. A little contradiction on
your part here. If he's salaried on a yearly basis, he must be on the job
on a yearly basis. Thus, his sexual capers with Mz Lewinski (among others)
was on my time.

 RW>> Fraternizing at work with the opposite sex is a no-no
 RW>> everywhere in industry. Why not the White House?

 bk>  That's a laugh. Fraternizing is common in industry.

Laugh all you want, people get fired for it all the time.

 bk> Most I've ever seen is a supervisor transferred.

They were lucky.

 bk> The only one I ever saw fired was trying to pressure the woman into
 bk> it.

Many years ago I went to my boss to tell him that I was leaving the
company for another job. He said that needn't put in the two weeks I had
given them, as he knew I was fraternizing with a gal in the accounting
office and he was about to let me go.

The real reason was that I was fraternizing with his best friend's
fiancee.  Not that my firing would have changed that, but he thought it
would. My new employer was glad to hear that I was available sooner and I
never looked back. I stopped seeing that gal when I felt like it, which
was months later.

 RW>> Of course, he couldn't do it after normal WH business
 RW>> hours, Hillery would have caught him. Which, IMO, would
 RW>> have been much better for the US than what actually
 RW>> transpired.

 bk>  He couldn't do it during normal business hours, no where to
 bk>  hide. And no time. It was late or weekends.

BS...it was in a private office, during workdays.

 bk>>> Bush got thousands of Americans, and hundreds of thousands of
 bk>>> Iraqis killed.

 RW>> The Iraqi's got themselves killed and those who were sent

 bk>  No, most of them did not. Most of them have been killed while
 bk>  going about their honest business.

If that is true, they must have been pretty stupid.

 bk>  60 some in today's paper.

Yes, but those aren't Bush's fault. Wrong place at the wrong time.

 RW>> to do a job there, knew what the danger was. They are an

 bk>  Yeah, but they should not have been sent there. They did not
 bk>  hire on to be Bush's private militia.

Ahhh, but they're not screaming chickenshit liberals like you.

 RW>> all volunteer military. Unlike when the LLWW's sent

 bk>  LLWW's? Oh, and they volunteered to protect this country, not to
 bk>  push the neo-con agenda in foreign countries.

Better bone up on the oath taken by everyone who volunteers. It's not like
joining the company you work for where you can quit and go home when it
suits you.

 RW>> 'drafted' kids to Viet Nam. Of course, some of those kids
 RW>> ran off to Canada rather than serve. They were probably
 RW>> protesting hippy Democrats.

 bk>  Very possibly. Now they are probably conservative republicans
 bk>  supporting sending other people's children to war. Much like
 bk>  Bush.

Better than liberals who sent their kids to Canada to avoid fighting the
liberal's war in Vietnam.

               R\%/itt



The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but
that they know so much that isn't so. - Ronald Reagan

--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)