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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Srexley who wrote (167546)	8/3/2001 4:58:25 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

Yes, I heard about Paula Jones. Her case, if you took her word for gospel, was: We flirted. He invited me to his hotel room at night. He made a gross pass. I said no. He said, I won't make you do anything you don't want to do & please don't tell anyone. I left. Nothing else happened. Can you imagine telling this story to the court if Bill Clinton had been the CEO of some business? Maybe good for some small greenmail, more likely dismissed out of hand. She couldn't show damages. Out of this molehill some very good lawyers with infinite funds created a perjury trap and sprung it. There's a reason that most Americans continued to support Clinton during the whole mess -- they looked, they said, so he tried to pick up a girl, we know he's a womanizer, so what? It's not bribery or treason, whatever the House Republicans may say. The President should not be quizzed under oath about his sex life. See Bill Clinton and Gary Condit. Whoa Nelly. Bill Clinton picked an indiscreet mistress. Condit's mistress is dead. Big difference. The part the confuses me about the support these men recieve from women is that they have obviously mislead these woman with hopes of real love when all they are really doing is getting their jollies with the women. Agreed, a guy like Condit with two or three mistresses at once is a slime. But if you're for women's independence you must also be for women's responsibility for their own actions, not patronize them as children or simpletons who must be protected from themselves. When a woman takes up with a married congressman, she should know what she's getting into. Chances are, she's also running around on her spouse. Anti-adultery crusades have a history of repressing women more than liberating them (becasuse of the double standard), so why should NOW support one? So I don't see any hypocrisy here.