Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (137736)	6/21/2001 8:21:32 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1585190

"An inbalance of power and experience does not make for non-consent." Unfortunately, in a legal sense, you're exactly correct. In the moral sense, however, you're dead wrong I was referring to the moral sense. Unless the extra power is used to coerce there was no nonconsensual sex. If Clinton had said "you will lose your job if you don't give me a BJ", then it could be considered non consensual, but all indications are that Lewinsky wanted a sexual relationship with Clinton. If you want something then you go for it and get it I can't see how it can be considered nonconsensual. Are you a liberal? In my view anyone who would try to rationalize Clinton's behavior, blindly accepting the sexual assaults, scandals, and (ugh!) the pardons, would have to be a liberal. Have you been paying any attention to my posts? Even in the recent one I talked about how it was illegal when Clinton denied under oath that he had sex with Lewinsky. I don't "blindly accept the scandals and pardons. If it can be shown that Clinton sexually assaulted anyone then I would consider that unacceptable behavior as well. (and atleast one woman claimed Clinton so assaulted her). I am not a defender of Clinton, I just think two adults willingly having sex with each other is not non consensual by definition. Monica consented and reportedly enjoyed it. I won't trivialize rape by calling that rape. I'm not even saying it was appropriate, but it was consensual. Tim

To: i-node who wrote (137736)	6/21/2001 9:31:23 PM
From: stribe30	Respond to of 1585190

Tim is about as liberal as Bush is a caring environmentalist.. you're way off base on calling him a liberal just because he doesnt think Ms Lewinsky was raped.. I dont know where you managed to dig that idea up from... what Clinton did (and Lewinsky as well.. she was a willing participant) was immoral and stupid.. but it wasnt rape. Did you just crawl out of your survivalist bomb shelter David? Clinton isnt in power anymore.. It amazes me how fanatical the Republican right-wing (and in your case.. WAYYYYYYYYY right-wing.. you make Jesse Helms look like a socialist) is in continuing to obsess about Clinton even after he is gone. IF you want to discuss morality.. go read some of these articles I just posted on all the potential conflict of interest problems Bush has with his VP, Cabinet Minister, and chief adviser.. and then explain to me again how Bush was going to bring good ethics and decency to the White House.. what a load of bull. But.. I suppose when the President is from the Republican party he can do no wrong in your eyes..

To: i-node who wrote (137736)	6/21/2001 10:46:08 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1585190

"Are you a liberal?" HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Apparently in your fantasy world, anyone who doesn't believe the stuff you spew about Clinton is a liberal. Try tackling issues as they are presented, instead of sliming all over the place. In the Monica Blewinsky case, there was no rape, she wasn't underaged and she wasn't naive. It was an incredibly stupid thing for Bill to do, for no other reason he would have to sooner or later explain it to Hillary. Compared to that, I am sure there is nothing that any court in the world could have done to punish him more. He is very lucky he wasn't "bobbitized"... Assuming he wasn't.