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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (597)	8/23/1998 1:55:00 PM
From: Ed Frye	Respond to of 67261

MH, >>Hmmm you guys consider bitching and whining unattractive? Dang! No wonder nobody talks to me at cocktail parties! LOL! check out my comment re: same in previous post. ed

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (597)	8/23/1998 7:46:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Respond to of 67261

Hmmm you guys consider bitching and whining unattractive? Dang! No wonder nobody talks to me at cocktail parties! RFLOL...I wasn't saying all feminists are bitchy and whiny, and with the good sense of humor that you have I wouldn't think you could be whiny - bitchy maybe -- LOL. Re PJ, and her case is financially supported completely by people with an ax to grind against Clinton First of all, it is obvious that the LAST thing the feminists wanted to do was back a SH case against Clinton: In fact, Paula did seek them out. The NOW leader said "okay, meet me at such and such hotel at such and such time, on this certain day next week". Stated the terms. Paula missed the appointment. That was it. The doors were slammed shut. And you have to figure that the NOW meeting would have had one objective by NOW: To talk Paula out of the suit. Common sense says that there is no way on God's green earth that the NOW gang would back a SH case against Clinton. Ain't going to happen. They are the one group that Clinton has never turned on. He has given them everything they asked for every step of the way. So, Paula is pushed into the camp of the opponents. And let's be real: Paula was no raving right-winger while she worked in Gov Clinton's admin in Arkansas. So Paula goes to court with the backing of the Rutherford Institute, and all she asks for is an apology. Wouldn't happen. Clinton could NEVER admit to one iota of wrongdoing. He lied his ass off in denial. And this is the President's word against a "politically motivated" woman. So one idiotic judge, who may have been tainted by political bias herself, throws the whole case out. Packwood, on the other hand, faced a raving wolfpack of feminists, plus a willing and biased mainstream press, who dutifully wrote grave and damning press pieces, day in a day out. Personal diaries were subpoened. Women told of every single sexual instance, including the ones that were mutually consenting. I don't remember ones that said he was violent. But clearly Packwood was a womanizer, an adulterer, and a harasser. Very distasteful guy. Paula got ganged up on by "the establishment", and so of course she lost. That's it, pure and simple.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (597)	8/24/1998 9:53:00 AM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<her case is financially supported completely by people with an ax to grind against Clinton (who also spent $50K to give Paula a complete makeover so she would look to the public as someone respectable) etc. It is INSULTING to me to hear this PJ case lumped in with the many actual cases of sexual harrassment that happen each year >> Clinton's case is financed by people with an axe to grind against Republicans - does that make the case less valid? This is not a comment regarding the validity of Jones' case, only a comment on your method of "attacking" it. I agree that the two cases shouldn't be compared - Without a complaint, there is no harassment case with Monica, and MOST of the sexual charges against Clinton (with Willey and Jones being the two exceptions that come to mind) have been related to consensual encounters. IMHO, Clinton was still abusing his position in the Monica mess, but that is not even close to the actual harassment in the Packwood case. Unfortunately, many charges of harassment are brought every year that you would probably not consider valid. We need more judges that are willing to throw the cases out up front.