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: jbe who wrote (5860)	9/28/1998 2:26:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

How do you prove it (especially if the object of harassment was not penalized on the job for non-compliance)? And if someone is unjustly charged, and even exonerated, doubts about him will probably linger... ah, but what about the patron saint of sexual harassment, and her coven of promoters during the Clarence Thomas hearings? I'm referring to Anita Hill, who became the much-regarded "expert" on sexual harassment, and who went on to command $100,000 speaking fees when she went on the lecture circuit. It's a fine time to start bringing up the difficulties of he said/she said cases. Yes, it's a fine time, now that the Dem's favorite boy has his proverbial ass in a crack. But you're right, the public whipping endured by Thomas over a joke about a pubic hair on a Coke can.......let me just say that I will Never give ground on the issue of sexual harassment: What was good enough for the goose then will do just fine for the gander now. It would appear the Feminists are quite willing to make up new offenses when it suits their political ends, and wipe those offenses off the books when it may cause political damage to their ends. Not gonna do it. The rules are made, now let's stick by them.

To: jbe who wrote (5860)	9/28/1998 2:49:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

I will find the link to the court case later. I'll have to ask the person who found it to help me find where it was posted. I would like to add that I agree that he-said/she-said cases are difficult---but in the case of Paula Jones, that is not the case. After the incident, she immediately went downstairs and related the entire incident to her co-worker. Additionally, she related the incident to her mother, and I think others. All have testified under oath that they are telling the truth. Nevertheless, Paula's case was summarily dismissed by Judge Susan W-W, very possibly her judgement was based on Bill Clinton's adamant lies on all counts: that he did the deed, that he had been involved in other incidences like the Lewinsky scandal, etc. So because of Bill Clinton's illegal lying, a woman was deprived of due process under the law. On the other hand, Anita Hill and her feminist backers were provided the whole audience of the US Senate in which to tell their terrible tale of the pubic hair on the Coke can--and Anita, who was the sole witness to the conversation (no dropping of pants here), continued to follow Thomas around from job to job. Whether or not the case of Jones should have been allowed to be heard before his term was up is a different matter--but it was allowed, and Bill Clinton lied his silly ass off. That much we know.