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: tejek who wrote (191042)	6/19/2004 7:40:32 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573988

The entire quote was as follows: ======================== I haven't backed off my position. I simply pointed out that when a man uses rohypnol to intoxicate a woman then sexually assault her, that power is well known to be an "intoxicant", and that Clinton's absuse of his power, effectively "intoxicating" Lewinsky, a near-teenager, it ought to be thought of as rape. I stand by my statement. But I think Tim made a good argument against my statement. I still feel that what Clinton did to Lewinsky was tantamount to some kind of sexual assault. Call it rape, sexual assault, DWI, I don't care. There is something wrong when the most powerful man in the world can sodomize a naive 22 year old and get away with it. The imbalance of power makes its flatly impossible, from a rational perspective, for her to have given consent. I don't believe I ever said Clinton RAPED Lewinsky**. I also don't think she was in any position to consent to a sexual relationship with the most powerful man in the world. ** I have, however, stated that Clinton RAPED Broaderrick, as clear and convincing proof to this effect has been presented. He got away with it, as surely as did OJ Simpson.