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: j_b who wrote (5022)	9/23/1998 7:43:00 PM
From: Johnathan C. Doe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

"harassment is very much dependent on the feelings of the person that claims they were harassed."; you obviously have a lay level on knowledge on this. I have a friend that is an HR professional. That is not the standard or you really would have a flood of cases in this area. I was against Thomas from the start for one reason and one reason alone; I didn't think he was qualified and even close to being in the top tier of choices. I actually supported Robert Bork even though he is so partisan now I can't believe I had. Am I partisan; if this was done by Dem's against Bush; I would have denounced it. Bush will go down in history as a great great President. Far better than Reagan. I didn't vote for him in '92 because I didn't like how out of touch he was with how bad the economy was. I didn't like that he could not care how much the middle and lower class where suffering and had been since the end of the '80's. He really was out of it on that subject. I also hated Dan Quayle and thought him unqualified to be a VP of the US and I was scared if something happened to Bush, Quayle didn't seem capable to run the country. I still can't stand him. I voted for Reagan in '84 and Bush in '88.

To: j_b who wrote (5022)	9/23/1998 8:13:00 PM
From: dougjn	Respond to of 67261

<<Speaking of Thomas and Hill, were you this supportive of Thomas? After all, the Hill allegations had far less corroborative evidence than Jones' claims. >> I thought the hysteria against Thomas was absolutely unhinged. Thoroughly unreasonable. You kept hearing things like, no woman ever makes an accusation like this unless its true. Lord help us all if we write something like that into our laws. Well, we sort of did, into our attitudes about these sorts of claims, once made. I also understood the outrage. It was a seething grievance that enormous numbers of women had, to greater or lesser degrees. There WAS a lot of harassment in the workplace, some petty, some serious, but all utterly without redress, up to that time. So it was understandable. But most unfair to him. Who I didn't even like very much. (My guess as to what really happened is that he had some tendency to tease her with off color jokes, since he saw her as being hyper sensitive and rigid. And she greatly exaggerated in her own mind what he said, due to her very hyper sensitivity. Then once she was persuaded to come forward for reasons largely politically motivated, she started to exaggerate even more, to make her case, and not appear ridiculous. Further the atmosphere at the time gave oxygen and acceptance to almost anything she might say at that time.) Doug