Replies

Probably more like "That dress really looks good on you."

Remember, when the trial lawyers were probing the new and lucrative 'harrassment' angle, almost anything could be considered 'harassment'. (They were still feeling out the limits of how much could be made off of what.)

The initial stories (being wiped out by the headlines) claimed in the text there was nothing overt, but the women in question 'felt uncomfortable', whatever that entails.

In short, it was a question of how they took the comment or gesture, not one of how it was intended.

As a business owner, I would have been glad to be rid of people who were going to create trouble at the drop of a hat. No organization can function effectively walking on eggshells. A settlement and non-disclosure agreement beats what may have been a lawsuit with a real hefty price tag in the future if someone had made a remark they could really get traction with, just as a strategic move.

I think this crap was blown out of proportion to begin with, and that is just getting worse.

In the meantime, we have Fast and Furious and all the other DOJ and associated taxpayer-funded firearm deliveries to criminals, we have the milking of huge (half-billion dollar) taxpayer funded loans to failing businesses which continued to fail--at our expense--with political connections and disappearing dollars, we have a national economy in the toilet, the Euro on its way down the pipe, and a host of other, literally earth-shaking developments and they are using the airtime to pump this?

If someone had some facts instead of all the inuendo and supposition, they might have a story.

As for the puke-licking minions of the MSM, they have managed to drop below the 'Bat Boy' credibility level with me. If they told me the sky is blue, I'd have to go check.