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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Krowbar who wrote (31215)	2/21/1999 11:23:00 AM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

<<Christine, I will only agree that the Supreme Court ruling that allowed the Jones case to proceed was not a good idea. It set bad precedent. There was no compelling reason why it needed to be dealt with promptly other than to undo the election of Clinton. After all, didn't she wait for a couple of years after the alleged incident to press charges? Indeed today's paper reports that Judge Wright might pursue contempt charges against Clinton. I have no problem with that if it is done after he serves his term.>> Paula Jones was never going to pursue any charges, Del. Then a friend of hers told her about an article mentioning "Paula" in reference to Clinton and an encounter in a hotel room, in the conservative rag, "American Spectator." Paula didn't want her reputation ruined, and it is at that point that she talked to a lawyer. Also at that point, all she wanted was an apology from Clinton, not any money at all. She was so naive that she didn't even know whether the Spectator was a major magazine, because she isn't a big reader. She is totally apolitical, and has never voted, either. You don't seem to have very much real information about any of these goings on. Paula Jones was interviewed by Larry King for an hour last Friday night, and was very credible. Do you actually watch the interviews with all of these women when they come on, or try to keep any kind of open mind about this issue? All I have heard from you seems to be the same spin that James Carville spews, really. <<You keep portraying the Jones encounter as sexual harassment. Doesn't that imply repeated actions against Jones, and didn't I understand it to be one incident that lasted a couple minutes? If you were asked up to a motel room would you have expected a job interview? If anything he was guilty of being kind of crude in his sexual advances, but aren't a lot of men? Christine, surely by now you must know that a lot of men think with their dicks, and when they get an erection it steals blood from their brains.>> Paula Jones strikes me as not extremely bright, and certainly very innocent and gullible. She was also very young at the time, and this was the governor of her state, for whom she worked. Prior to Clinton, it was not immediately assumed by all women that it was inherently dangerous to be around their elected officials. As far as one incident being sexual harassment, I believe the courts have ruled that it can be. I'm not an expert on this, however. As far as the contempt of court ruling, what would happen if he is judged to be in contempt of court? Something very bad, I hope! <<I can see signs of the Christian right getting to you, Christine. I forbid you to read "Ask God" for one month.>> I think I would score pretty high on any total liberal test, Del. I don't believe Bill Clinton should be president because I believe he is a criminal thug, and I don't think partial birth abortion should be legal unless the fetus is dead or the mother's actual life is in danger. Other than that, I think I am resoundingly liberal. Don't you believe in the death penalty? By the same token, do you consider yourself a conservative because many conservatives share your beliefs?