Posted on 02/06/2018 6:25:12 PM PST by Enterprise
Only about 20 years too late. They should have done this immediately in 1998 after the Monica incident. Heck even could have named the bill after her.
Don’t bang the help. How Victorian.
It doesn’t say anything about sex with lobbyists does it?
I want to see what the mandatory serious punishment is for violations.
Otherwise, as usual, we're talking worthless!!
What a surprise! Fake laws now?
Anybody see a loophole here? Congressperson A puts his/her bimbo on Congressperson B's staff, and vice versa. A clerical fix and the fun goes on.
They’ll just have their buddy Congressman hire the gal he wants to have sex with and return the favor. Always a way for a sleazeball to get around the rules.
Wouldn’t it just look like UV reflective paint in the first scan?
I’m only interested to see who votes against this. Show me the list
I see it in the same light as military units having women forced into them, accompanied by admonitions not to engage in sexual behavior, penalties for doing so, assuming sex and pregnancies won’t occur because they are “professional” and there are “rules and regulations” in place.
What a load of horse crap. Just like this stupid legislation.
Sounds like a good business opportunity. Set up a nice market for chastity belts and muzzles.
This kind of thing annoys me.
One of the most powerful and irresistible (to some) forces in nature is the sexual drive.
People destroy their families, jobs, careers, and lives over sex. They betray their country for sex. They murder people over it.
A stupid pissant rule isn’t going to stop it. I shouldn’t be angry about it, but this attitude that it can be legislated in some way really irritates me.
Sigh. I guess legislators gotta legislate.
A rule may not stop it, but a rule makes it actionable.
It is as old as time. I think what gets me about it isn’t the act itself, but the attitude that they feel they can impose a penalty, and that fixes the problem to them and makes it look like they are doing something to “protect” women.
And it is about women. Men who are pursued by their superiors don’t enter this equation, even if the idiots say it protects “everyone” including homosexuals.
How many of the pols voting for this are party to secret non-disclosure agreements, I wonder...
How about between their Chiefs of Staff/Legislative Directors and the avalanche of hot young things that descend on the hill in June of every year, like the (you should pardon the expression) swallows returning to Capistrano?
I guess it just doesn’t register with me that way...I see it as a form of virtue signalling legislation to show they really care, and are doing something about it.
I’ll eat my hat the first time this is applied in any fashion to anyone but a non-leftist or someone at the lower end of things in government service.
I admit stuff like this makes me feel quite jaundiced about the whole thing.
You’re going to go to some kind of Freeper Hell for posting that where I have to scroll by it every time!
You gotta give a heads up on those pics!
What if we had execution as a satisfactory penalty for it?
Potentially the post of the day! Well done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.