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 (5395)	9/25/1998 5:48:00 PM
From: mrknowitall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Michelle - <<OT>> I think she had her sights on higher office for her future. Now she can pull her self up and away from the scandals and let the public either blame Bill for anything she might of had a hand in or use the "it's unfair" approach, which seems to get a lot of sympathy - at least from those people being polled. Mr. K.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (5395)	9/25/1998 9:05:00 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 67261

jewishworldreview.com

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (5395)	9/26/1998 10:42:00 AM
From: Les H	Respond to of 67261

Court Decision Opens the Door For Mandatory Oral-Sex in the Workplace Allentown, PA - Today, judge Norman Parker, ruled that John Boyd was not guilty of sexually harassing his 27 year old secretary, Belinda Johnson, despite the fact that Boyd openly admitted that he told Miss Johnson that if she didn't perform oral-sex on him that she would lose her job. Judge Parker agreed with Boyd's attorney who argued that because President Clinton's definition of "sexual relations" excludes oral-sex, it is not sexual harassment to demand oral-sex from an employee. Said Boyd's attorney, "Oral-sex is not sex. The man who holds the highest office in our country has made that perfectly clear. Therefore, my client cannot possibly be guilty of "sexually" harassing Miss Johnson. If he had demanded that she have intercourse with him, then things would be different." Judge Parker's decision is precedent setting and is expected to have far reaching implications for businesses across the country. Some corporations are already making moves to include oral-sex as part of their secretarial job requirements. Said one executive, "I have already changed the form that I use during my annual employee review. The form now includes a line called 'BJ Performance'." Surprisingly the National Organization for Women (NOW) supports Judge Parker's decision. Olga Lesbomb, spokeswoman for NOW told BNN, "Judge Parker's decision was based on our President's definition of sex. If Clinton says that oral-sex isn't sex then we're not going to argue. Although, there will be some women who won't like this we encourage them to just suck it up and look on the bright side. At least we have a President who has fought to keep women from going back to the dark ages when abortion wasn't legal."