Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: dougjn who wrote (2668)	9/13/1998 8:15:00 PM
From: Zeuspaul	Read Replies (1) of 67261

I find your posts refreshing. Most Clinton defenders recite the WH BS. I do agree with most of your points. I believe if one stands back and avoids the details one can conclude the President should not be in office. We are probably not there yet. More details have to come out about his other scandals. It's sad to see America being dragged through the mud again. Do we blame a multitude or does the blame fall on one man? Certainly murder is a High Crime by any reasonable person's lights. I think criminally reckless homicide would be as well. So you agree that drunk driving is a very serious offense? Certainly not impeachable until the almost inevitable accident? I prefer to be proactive rather than reactive. Sex in the work place may or may not be harassment. I think what you have in mind are the private rules which not a few companies have developed for their own protection, and require their employees to follow, in an effort to avoid having the company swept into a sexual harassment allegation. I am not a lawyer and certainly no expert on sexual harassment. I have heard references to Federal guidelines? on sexual harassment. Can someone post the Federal guidelines?/rules?. Are you arguing that both the Paula Jones case ( which I find more serious than the Monika thing, not the deed but the denial of her rights. Taking advantage of the disadvantaged is reprehensible IMO.) and the Monika thing are not sexual harassment? There is no way that I believe Clinton should not be held accountable for his encounter with Paula..if it is not harassment what is it? There is no way that I believe Clinton did not take advantage of his position in the Monika thing. This was not sex between two equals. In his mind he knew this woman was after him because he was the President. He encouraged her to continue for his personal gain. It was in a work environment. The constant references to consensual sex belittle the situation. It may not be sexual harassment in a legal sense (I am not convinced of that yet) but it is not an innocent affair either. I am not arguing for moral police. I am arguing what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If I did this I would be out of a job. Same for the CEO even if what he did were not illegal. Trying to find a loop hole for the President is not prudent IMO. Given enough money one can always find an argument. That is the current state of our legal system. There seems to be a disconnect between the legal system and justice. We should take the sexual harassment laws off the books if they can only be understood by lawyers. Actually, we've had several alcoholic Presidents. There was never any serious consideration given to impeaching any of them. I'm not aware of any that couldn't function My experience is different. I have no knowledge of Presidential behavior while drunk but I do not think it is much different than the average guy. I guess you are arguing that Presidents can hold their liquor well? I have experienced intoxicated fellow employees and family members. Their behavior is significantly altered while intoxicated. The effects wear off slowly. Someone with his finger on the trigger should not be drunk IMO. I would argue against any alcoholic ( not recovered alcoholics) President. Addiction be it alcoholic or sexual can be serious. The addict places the addiction above other significant issues. A sexually addicted President should be closely monitored. Performance in office was the standard Lincoln wisely applied to Grant. And not some moral litmus test. Is alcohol a moral issue as it affects one's behavior in office? Is this all about morals? What about reckless behavior resulting in significantly diminished capacity to lead? .... Performance in office? Do you mean past performance in office? I am not looking backward to Clinton's accomplishments. All I see is a preoccupied government. I do not see leadership as of today 13 Sep 98. I see a nation at risk as a direct result of Clintons actions. It may be a twisted convoluted web but we are hear none the less and have to deal with it. We should move on but without Clinton unless he chooses to lead us out of the mess he lead us into. Step number one is to call off the lawyers. Two more years is too much. Clinton himself called his behavior indefensible so why has he unleashed the latest attack on Starr and the truth? What is he afraid of? He has a very simple task. This will not go to conviction in the Senate or resignation if he stops the provocations. He is the only one who can stop the nonsense but chooses to perpetuate. IMO he is either gutless or incapable of leading without his attack army or both. Zeuspaul

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next