Author Topic: Dutiful, obedient apparatchik; when she says no she really means yes  (Read 1198 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online SSG Snuggle Bunny

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23604
  • Reputation: +2504/-270
  • Voted Rookie-of-the-Year, 3 years running
Ordinarily Hannah Bell would be the first throw broad, institutional indictments against any group lacking prior approval from the Central Committee, LLC. Sexual crimes against women have been a staple of attacks against the dreaded establishment. She doesn't even like the IMF. Yet, DSK is her current cause celebre.

I am convinced Hannah Bell would allow herself to gang ass-raped by the entire politburo to establish her socialist credentials.

Quote
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Fri May-20-11 12:11 AM
Original message
Sarkozy vs. Strauss-Kahn: Sex as a Weapon?
   
Nicolas Sarkozy and Dominique Stauss-Kahn were never friends - one conservative, the other Socialist, their political ambitions setting them on a collision course. Yet, soon after Sarkozy's 2007 election as President of France, he surprised most people by nominating Strauss-Kahn to be Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, a heartening reach across party lines. Others, however, saw a more devious motive: Sarkozy was moving his most potent challenger to the IMF's Washington, D.C. headquarters and depriving the freshly defeated Socialist Party of his charisma and leadership. The last four years, according to political observers in France, have been full of similar subtle and not-so-subtle maneuvers as both men prepared for what had been prophesied as a fierce battle for the French Presidency in 2012.

Sarkozy has taken the requisite "innocent until proven guilty" position about Strauss-Kahn and his catastrophic legal situation in the U.S. But few observers believe the French President is grieving. Sarkozy knew he had been lucky back in 2007 not to have faced the popular Strauss-Kahn at the polls (instead, the Socialists fielded the attractive but disorganized SÉgolÈne Royal.) During a 2006 lunch discussion, a Sarkozy adviser told TIME how relieved he and his boss were that Strauss-Kahn was not running. "Of course," said the adviser with a smile, "if he did run, he'd probably ruin his own chances by getting caught in some woman's bed." (See pictures of Sarkozy in the U.S.)

Indeed, certain analysts argue that the French President may have been betting on rather cynical odds: that by sending a notorious libertine to the puritanical Mecca of America in the first place - and to the political correct strictures of the rigid IMF in particular - Sarkozy was simply giving Strauss-Kahn enough rope to hang himself with...In 2008, Strauss-Kahn was forced to admit he'd engaged in a sexual affair with Hungarian economist Piroska Nagy - who was his subordinate at the IMF...Sarkozy allies decided to escalate the sex war, voicing overt warnings in the press that they'd go public with proof of Strauss-Kahn's lamentable private behavior if he chose to run for president - referring to long-rumored incriminating photos of Strauss-Kahn caught in flagrante delicto...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20110519/wl_time/085992072...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1138979

OK, now how about this:

Quote
Some women avoid wearing skirts for fear of attracting unwanted attention. Others trade whispered tips about overly forward bosses. A 2008 internal review found few restraints on the conduct of senior managers, concluding that “the absence of public ethics scandals seems to be more a consequence of luck than good planning and action.”

This is life at the International Monetary Fund, the lender of last resort for governments that need money and, under the leadership of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, an emerging force in the regulation of the global economy.

But with Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s arrest earlier this week and indictment on Thursday on charges that he tried to rape a New York hotel housekeeper, a spotlight has been cast on the culture of the institution. And questions have been revived about a 2008 episode in which the I.M.F. decided that Mr. Strauss-Kahn had not broken any rules in sleeping with a female employee.

What may draw even more attention to the culture of the fund is the revelation of an affair involving a potential successor to Mr. Strauss-Kahn, who resigned as managing director on Wednesday. Kemal Dervis of Turkey had a liaison while working at the World Bank years ago with a woman who now works at the I.M.F., according to a person with direct knowledge of the relationship.

Interviews and documents paint a picture of the fund as an institution whose sexual norms and customs are markedly different from those of Washington, leaving its female employees vulnerable to harassment. The laws of the United States do not apply inside its walls, and until earlier this month the I.M.F.’s own rules contained an unusual provision that some experts and former officials say has encouraged managers to pursue the women who work for them: “Intimate personal relationships between supervisors and subordinates do not, in themselves, constitute harassment.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/business/20fund.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

I guess we'll have to wait for wsws.com to tell this stupid bukkake-loving whore when it's OK to go back to being mad about institutionalized sexual predation.
According to the Bible, "know" means "yes."

Offline Mr Mannn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14885
  • Reputation: +2648/-276

I guess we'll have to wait for wsws.com to tell this stupid bukkake-loving whore when it's OK to go back to being mad about institutionalized sexual predation.
It's different with DUmmies. Sexual crimes only exist when the perp is a conservative or an enemy.
Being a pedo is only bad when its a Priest committing the crime.  Otherwise they will end up supporting pedophilia as a sort or civil right...Will Pitt isn't a teacher because of what...?

1) Clinton raped Juanita Broderick. Yet a DUmmie will never blame a liberal president.
2) When Clinton cheated on his wife with Monica, DUmmies said, "It's just sex, everyone does it." But when Newt Gingrich cheats on his wife, then he isn't fit to hold office.

There is no crime committed by a liberal that DUmmies will not tolerate. Corruption is integral part of the democrat party because of this. 

Liberalism's double standard puts them above the law...and ensures that liberals will always be corrupt.
Because of that fact Liberalism is inherently evil.

Offline jukin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16256
  • Reputation: +2129/-170
The world would be a much better place if the far left were not around.
When you are the beneficiary of someone’s kindness and generosity, it produces a sense of gratitude and community.

When you are the beneficiary of a policy that steals from someone and gives it to you in return for your vote, it produces a sense of entitlement and dependency.

Online SSG Snuggle Bunny

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23604
  • Reputation: +2504/-270
  • Voted Rookie-of-the-Year, 3 years running
The world would be a much better place if the far left were not around.

They're aborting themselves as quickly as possible; don't interfere.
According to the Bible, "know" means "yes."

Online SSG Snuggle Bunny

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23604
  • Reputation: +2504/-270
  • Voted Rookie-of-the-Year, 3 years running
DU found the article:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1140454

Lots of comments about "If it's consensual it isn't harrassment."

OK, but what is the line between consent and coerced?

The should search DU for the term "hostile work environment" and remind themselves where they once stood.
According to the Bible, "know" means "yes."

Offline Celtic Rose

  • All American Girl
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4157
  • Reputation: +311/-32
DU found the article:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1140454

Lots of comments about "If it's consensual it isn't harrassment."

OK, but what is the line between consent and coerced?

The should search DU for the term "hostile work environment" and remind themselves where they once stood.

This is the reason that most employers strongly discourage, if not outright forbid, relationships with subordinate employees.  It is extremely difficult to prove that there is no coercion when one person in a relationship has complete control over the other person's employment.