Bloomberg sex remarks and harrasment case

His remarks were irrelevant to her, exxagerated, or made up in its entirety

When you stop just pulling things out of your ass and putting them up on this thread, like they meant something, maybe I'll bother reading it again.

Every single statement you have made on this thread is 100% unsupported by evidence.
 
water... what this article illustrates is that the far left dems like Cypress are afraid Bloomberg may run for President. Thus, they are digging up old news like Cypress just did and are trying to make something of it. Likely because they know Bloomberg is restricted from talking about it by the court. So they can essentially say whatever they like and he cannot provide any details.

Yes, Darla... sexual harassment is not good and most definitely should not be tolerated. Which is why she took him to court and forced a settlement from him.
 
Superfreak said:
water... what this article illustrates is that the far left dems like Cypress are afraid Bloomberg may run for President. Thus, they are digging up old news like Cypress just did and are trying to make something of it. Likely because they know Bloomberg is restricted from talking about it by the court. So they can essentially say whatever they like and he cannot provide any details.

Yes, Darla... sexual harassment is not good and most definitely should not be tolerated. Which is why she took him to court and forced a settlement from him.
Click to expand...

Yeah, SF makes more sense than me. I'm deleting all of the stuff I wrote.
 
Watermark said:
You see? Even this heresay is enough to drive you into paranoia about it. This was about destroying Bloomberg. His remarks were exxagerated, or made up in its entirety. It's just seems like really nice timing, you know. This "happened" in 1993. Bloomberg announces his run for mayor in 2000. Sexual harraasment suit, 2000...
Click to expand...

Water... the suit was filed in 1997. :)
 
Superfreak said:
water... what this article illustrates is that the far left dems like Cypress are afraid Bloomberg may run for President. Thus, they are digging up old news like Cypress just did and are trying to make something of it. Likely because they know Bloomberg is restricted from talking about it by the court. So they can essentially say whatever they like and he cannot provide any details.

Yes, Darla... sexual harassment is not good and most definitely should not be tolerated. Which is why she took him to court and forced a settlement from him.
Click to expand...

Water posted the thread SF.
 
Watermark said:
OK. Proove that he made the remarks.
Click to expand...

water... I think the fact that he settled pretty much proves he said something derogatory. Perhaps it was exaggerated, perhaps not.... we will not know for sure because neither party can discuss the case. But in a sexual harassment case... you fight that tooth and nail if you are innocent. You do not settle... because if you settle, it follows you around for life. The only reason not to fight if you are innocent is because you cannot afford the exhorbitant fees of the trial lawyers.... which is certainly not the case for Bloomberg.
 
I have no idea if the claims have merit, I was not on the jury and neither party could speak of it after a settlement.
 
Superfreak said:
water... I think the fact that he settled pretty much proves he said something derogatory. Perhaps it was exaggerated, perhaps not.... we will not know for sure because neither party can discuss the case. But in a sexual harassment case... you fight that tooth and nail if you are innocent. You do not settle... because if you settle, it follows you around for life. The only reason not to fight if you are innocent is because you cannot afford the exhorbitant fees of the trial lawyers.... which is certainly not the case for Bloomberg.
Click to expand...

True, true...
 
Yes, Darla... sexual harassment is not good and most definitely should not be tolerated. Which is why she took him to court and forced a settlement from him.

And SF, it's not a matter of it shouldn't be tolerated, it's a matter of, it's now illegal. So women no longer have to depend on the kindess of strangers. So I don't have to hope I stumble into your office and you'll be so nice about it, and say, well, little lady, we are not going to tolerate that around here, don't you worry. Or maybe I'll stumble into WM's office and he'll say "never happened, sexual harrassment is always exxagerated, prove it".

Instead, I'll march into someone's office and say, this stops now, or I own you, got it?

See, that is called being empowered.
 
Well, anyway, I deleted the entire phrase up there that was playing down the remarks, so we just don't have to think about this anymore.

I'm not sure how this makes me feel about the guy. He's a fuckin perv. What do you guys think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top