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 (10353)	10/20/1998 4:46:00 PM
From: Jay Scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

So the difference is, if you can pay off your victims enough and make them happy, so that they don't accuse, then it's okay? What if you use government resources to buy their happiness? Is that okay? So you can't dangle a job opportunity in exchange for sex, or is it only okay if you offer them jobs and incentives for sex? Oh, damn, I'm getting so confused! JS

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (10353)	10/20/1998 4:48:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

You're confusing the issue here. The point is that Clarence Thomas was villified by the liberal women's groups based on an accusation by a subordinate worker. Paula Jones was a subordinate worker to BC and she took her accusation to be heard in court. BC lied to avoid the possible consequences of that legal action. It is obvious that NOW holds a much different standard for conservatives accused of sexual harassment than liberals accused of the same thing. Complete double standard. bp