SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (3140)1/28/1998 6:58:00 PM
From: jhild  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 20981
 
Sure I get it. I'm not defending him other than to point out that it is stretching the facts to paint this as harassment. There is no law against poor judgement. The electorate had a chance and didn't remove him. That is the appropriate check and balance, not impeachment for such a thin case on the claim of harassment.



To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (3140)1/28/1998 8:14:00 PM
From: Frank  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 20981
 
I'm going on a reach here. BUT. WHAT IF. Can this not be construined (sp?) as Lewinsky sexually harrassing the president? Give it a thought. It's not as far fetched as you might think. Lets try to set aside our conditioning that says: Males sexually harrass(perpetraitor) and women are always on the recieving end(victim).

Frank



To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (3140)1/28/1998 8:46:00 PM
From: Helios  Respond to of 20981
 
<<When that individual makes the decision to engage in such risky business, he places his carnal urges above the good of his constituents. That makes him unfit for office.>>

All that is just an opinion. As far as I can tell Clinton's sex life is not effecting his performance. As to John Chambers etc., well you really don't know do you. That's because it's supposed to be PRIVATE.