The blowjob in public was not even the media's fault but was the fault of the relentless hounding by the prosecuter, who demanded that the whole of the transcripts with unecessary descriptions was released on the internet. And all this as a last resort because they spent millions chasing a phantom and new it all along.
Though it was stupid and showed a truly terrible side of Clinton to lie about his affair it should never have been an issue. We do not have a monarchy where the issue is to be a figurhead where all of your personality is your office: we have politicians who's job is to govern: their hours are 'on while not vacationing' so if they can squeeze in a little squeez3e and still do the job, maybe even better, then so be it.
Its only 'preying' upon because it's in your interests to see it that way. They were consenting adults.
There was even a good article, in Harper's back then, that took the tongue in cheek attitude that perhaps they were actually in love... well, in some serious infatuation at least . . .the article takes it all as a humorous possibility but ends up making a very good arguement . . . after all why not?!
[quote] ------ <hr></blockquote>
Anyway if you are going to play the 'Blame an American you Don't Like for Terrorism' game . . I would say lets go back to the lacadaisacl responce to the Beruit bombings: which resulted in our tail tucked pull out and the tacit instituting of a policy of lax responce:
Yes it is the issue. If we want to have fair and open work place where people move forward based on job performace we cannot have bosses giving out rewards for sex. It's just that simple. Every working womans job was made harder when Bill Clinton used sex as a basis for a recomendation. It goes right to the core of what so many have been fighing for for so long. Promotions based on merit and not sexual favors.
[quote]Then you must hate women and think that the work place is a good place to get sex from women because you know they will do it for the right promotion. <hr></blockquote>
I agree that it is a terrible thing . . . if indeed that occured. But I'm not so sure it happened the way you think, and there is not proof that it did.
I know from my job, as a professor that student/proffesor relations are expressly forbid for the very reasoned point that you make. However, I also know many many professors who have ended up marrying their graduate students: I can name several from the University where I now am . . . (and they are not men Profs w/ female students) Human passions and love are not subject to simplistic rules... even though I agree with your arguement, and yes I will concede that it is more important than liberals are oft fond of assuming.
The bad policy being if you suck Bills cock you get a good job. That's a bad way to run an office, The White House, and no way to lead the office, the entire country. Also consider that he opened the US up to a sexual harrasment lawsuit. It's such ****ing poor judgement on his part.
.</strong><hr></blockquote>
According to the rumor, That's the way Holywoods and the industrial picture moovie in general, do
I think there is many women ready to suck the cock of any president of country. Monica Lewisky never said she was oblige to do, what she has done.
The fault of Bill Clinton was to be weak in that case, but it is not sexual harrassment (an ugly thing that exist )
<strong>Every working womans job was made harder when Bill Clinton used sex as a basis for a recomendation. It goes right to the core of what so many have been fighing for for so long. Promotions based on merit and not sexual favors.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You keep on saying this - that it was used for promotion. Proof?
I think there is many women ready to suck the cock of any president of country. Monica Lewisky never said she was oblige to do, what she has done.
The fault of Bill Clinton was to be weak in that case, but it is not sexual harrassment (an ugly thing that exist )</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ahhhhh!!!!! Yes but the woman sharing an office with Monica might say, "How did you get that great job in NYC? I want one too." And Monica would say, "You have to drop to your knees ...."
Why is it liberals are so good at picking these situations apart in every other situation but this one.
Ahhhhh!!!!! Yes but the woman sharing an office with Monica might say, "How did you get that great job in NYC? I want one too." And Monica would say, "You have to drop to your knees ...."
/QB]<hr></blockquote>
There is sexual harrassment, but threre is also sexual proposition in order to obtain jobs.
My father who was the chief of an engineering departement, was searching a secretary many , many years ago. One of them, propose him to be a perfect secretary, ready to go at every-place with him (every congress) and ready to do some little nasty jobs. My father was astonished, he employ an another person.
Personaly a similar story happens to me (i won't tell you more because it's under NDA : no kidding) : but by the hell this sorts of things exist and are not comic when you are implicated.
Yea. That's part of the point. That's the world Bill Clinton helps to create. The one where secretaries tell their bosses at a job interview that the are willing to do "anything". I'm sure that last woman's boss made use of that. Rather than set a better example for the entire country Bill said "hell yea, get down there young lady".
<strong>Yea. That's part of the point. That's the world Bill Clinton helps to create. The one where secretaries tell their bosses at a job interview that the are willing to do "anything". I'm sure that last woman's boss made use of that. Rather than set a better example for the entire country Bill said "hell yea, get down there young lady".</strong><hr></blockquote>
All these things you say brings me back to my point earlier: why do you "know" so much about Clinton? Are you his close personal friend? Have you been stalking him?
Ok, I was going to put a direct link in, but UBB code is dumb. So, if you want to find the original Mercury News articles, go to <a href="http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/archives/#form"; target="_blank">this page</a>, choose only to search the SJ Mercury News, enter the search term "dark alliance". Under "More Options", select the date range from 8/17/96 - 8/21/96, and you'll get the abstracts for the articles.
<strong>The blowjob in public was not even the media's fault but was the fault of the relentless hounding by the prosecuter, who demanded that the whole of the transcripts with unecessary descriptions was released on the internet...</strong><hr></blockquote>
The transcripts were released by Congress. It was their call not Starr's. And the relentless hounding was because Starr knew Clinton had perjured himself during the Whitewater trials. Then along came the Lewinsky tapes - granite hard evidence of a different perjury. He pursued the case that was better established. Leaving aside the more lewd details I'm sure it was Clinton's simple contempt for the law that spurred Starr on as much as anything.
Ok, I was going to put a direct link in, but UBB code is dumb. So, if you want to find the original Mercury News articles, go to <a href="http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/archives/#form"; target="_blank">this page</a>, choose only to search the SJ Mercury News, enter the search term "dark alliance". Under "More Options", select the date range from 8/17/96 - 8/21/96, and you'll get the abstracts for the articles.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe The Mercury's editor apologized for some of the wild charges made in that article. Be sure to look for that too.
The apology wouldn't be found within that date range.
I know, they can be found on the archive as well. However, since I already posted a negative critique of the articles (the gov't reports posted earlier) I thought it would behoove me to show the original articles. Also, while the editor apologized, the writer of the articles resigned over a conflict with the editor. So, there's a lot of information to seep through. I don't claim that the Mercury News is fundamentally correct, I just think it is an interesting series of events to look at.
Edit: Just in case anyone cares, the date of Mercury News editor Joey Ceppos correction of the "Dark Alliance" stories was 5/11/97
<strong>Yea. That's part of the point. That's the world Bill Clinton helps to create. The one where secretaries tell their bosses at a job interview that the are willing to do "anything". I'm sure that last woman's boss made use of that. Rather than set a better example for the entire country Bill said "hell yea, get down there young lady".</strong><hr></blockquote>
My point was not to be the defender of Bill Clintion , i understand you are angry against him because he give a ridiculous image of USA, however, this affair was built by Starr to embarasse him. So some Americans where also angry against Starr, because he let pass politic (not the best one) after the image of USA.
My point was reffering in general about this sort of way of acting. I am ok with you and by the way with most of AI people (i expect ) that sexual harrasment must be banish. In other case , i said that some people are ready to act like bitchs in order to take some advantages, even if they are not oblige to do it like it was in the past (King Louis 14 was famous by is reputation to put all the women he wanted in his bed at the contrary of his father louis 13 who was straigth as a ray of light).
From the beginning of history, there is story about infamous boss, and people ready to everything in order to take advantage. Boths need to be blame even the case of the boss is worst.
Comments
Though it was stupid and showed a truly terrible side of Clinton to lie about his affair it should never have been an issue. We do not have a monarchy where the issue is to be a figurhead where all of your personality is your office: we have politicians who's job is to govern: their hours are 'on while not vacationing' so if they can squeeze in a little squeez3e and still do the job, maybe even better, then so be it.
Its only 'preying' upon because it's in your interests to see it that way. They were consenting adults.
There was even a good article, in Harper's back then, that took the tongue in cheek attitude that perhaps they were actually in love... well, in some serious infatuation at least . . .the article takes it all as a humorous possibility but ends up making a very good arguement . . . after all why not?!
[quote] ------ <hr></blockquote>
Anyway if you are going to play the 'Blame an American you Don't Like for Terrorism' game . . I would say lets go back to the lacadaisacl responce to the Beruit bombings: which resulted in our tail tucked pull out and the tacit instituting of a policy of lax responce:
now who was that president?!?!?
It's just so simple.
<strong>Yep, I need to put my vote in for Clinton.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Then you must hate women and think that the work place is a good place to get sex from women because you know they will do it for the right promotion.
Wow Scott. You must really hate big business.
I know from my job, as a professor that student/proffesor relations are expressly forbid for the very reasoned point that you make. However, I also know many many professors who have ended up marrying their graduate students: I can name several from the University where I now am . . . (and they are not men Profs w/ female students) Human passions and love are not subject to simplistic rules... even though I agree with your arguement, and yes I will concede that it is more important than liberals are oft fond of assuming.
Anyway, what about Beirut?!?!
<strong>
The bad policy being if you suck Bills cock you get a good job. That's a bad way to run an office, The White House, and no way to lead the office, the entire country. Also consider that he opened the US up to a sexual harrasment lawsuit. It's such ****ing poor judgement on his part.
.</strong><hr></blockquote>
According to the rumor, That's the way Holywoods and the industrial picture moovie in general, do
I think there is many women ready to suck the cock of any president of country. Monica Lewisky never said she was oblige to do, what she has done.
The fault of Bill Clinton was to be weak in that case, but it is not sexual harrassment (an ugly thing that exist
<strong>Every working womans job was made harder when Bill Clinton used sex as a basis for a recomendation. It goes right to the core of what so many have been fighing for for so long. Promotions based on merit and not sexual favors.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You keep on saying this - that it was used for promotion. Proof?
<strong>
You keep on saying this - that it was used for promotion. Proof?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Monica got a nice job in NYC from Bill's pal Vernon Jordan. Or don't you remember that?
<strong>
I think there is many women ready to suck the cock of any president of country. Monica Lewisky never said she was oblige to do, what she has done.
The fault of Bill Clinton was to be weak in that case, but it is not sexual harrassment (an ugly thing that exist
Ahhhhh!!!!! Yes but the woman sharing an office with Monica might say, "How did you get that great job in NYC? I want one too." And Monica would say, "You have to drop to your knees ...."
Why is it liberals are so good at picking these situations apart in every other situation but this one.
[QB]
Ahhhhh!!!!! Yes but the woman sharing an office with Monica might say, "How did you get that great job in NYC? I want one too." And Monica would say, "You have to drop to your knees ...."
/QB]<hr></blockquote>
There is sexual harrassment, but threre is also sexual proposition in order to obtain jobs.
My father who was the chief of an engineering departement, was searching a secretary many , many years ago. One of them, propose him to be a perfect secretary, ready to go at every-place with him (every congress) and ready to do some little nasty jobs. My father was astonished, he employ an another person.
Personaly a similar story happens to me (i won't tell you more because it's under NDA : no kidding) : but by the hell this sorts of things exist and are not comic when you are implicated.
Go for it.
<strong>Yea. That's part of the point. That's the world Bill Clinton helps to create. The one where secretaries tell their bosses at a job interview that the are willing to do "anything". I'm sure that last woman's boss made use of that. Rather than set a better example for the entire country Bill said "hell yea, get down there young lady".</strong><hr></blockquote>
All these things you say brings me back to my point earlier: why do you "know" so much about Clinton? Are you his close personal friend? Have you been stalking him?
Ok, I was going to put a direct link in, but UBB code is dumb. So, if you want to find the original Mercury News articles, go to <a href="http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/archives/#form"; target="_blank">this page</a>, choose only to search the SJ Mercury News, enter the search term "dark alliance". Under "More Options", select the date range from 8/17/96 - 8/21/96, and you'll get the abstracts for the articles.
[ 02-14-2002: Message edited by: agent302 ]</p>
<strong>The blowjob in public was not even the media's fault but was the fault of the relentless hounding by the prosecuter, who demanded that the whole of the transcripts with unecessary descriptions was released on the internet...</strong><hr></blockquote>
The transcripts were released by Congress. It was their call not Starr's. And the relentless hounding was because Starr knew Clinton had perjured himself during the Whitewater trials. Then along came the Lewinsky tapes - granite hard evidence of a different perjury. He pursued the case that was better established. Leaving aside the more lewd details I'm sure it was Clinton's simple contempt for the law that spurred Starr on as much as anything.
<strong>On the whole CIA-crack cocaine issue:
Ok, I was going to put a direct link in, but UBB code is dumb. So, if you want to find the original Mercury News articles, go to <a href="http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/archives/#form"; target="_blank">this page</a>, choose only to search the SJ Mercury News, enter the search term "dark alliance". Under "More Options", select the date range from 8/17/96 - 8/21/96, and you'll get the abstracts for the articles.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe The Mercury's editor apologized for some of the wild charges made in that article. Be sure to look for that too.
The apology wouldn't be found within that date range.
[ 02-14-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
<strong>
I believe The Mercury's editor apologized for some of the wild charges made in that article. Be sure to look for that too.
The apology wouldn't be found within that date range.
[ 02-14-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know, they can be found on the archive as well. However, since I already posted a negative critique of the articles (the gov't reports posted earlier) I thought it would behoove me to show the original articles. Also, while the editor apologized, the writer of the articles resigned over a conflict with the editor. So, there's a lot of information to seep through. I don't claim that the Mercury News is fundamentally correct, I just think it is an interesting series of events to look at.
Edit: Just in case anyone cares, the date of Mercury News editor Joey Ceppos correction of the "Dark Alliance" stories was 5/11/97
[ 02-14-2002: Message edited by: agent302 ]</p>
<strong>Yea. That's part of the point. That's the world Bill Clinton helps to create. The one where secretaries tell their bosses at a job interview that the are willing to do "anything". I'm sure that last woman's boss made use of that. Rather than set a better example for the entire country Bill said "hell yea, get down there young lady".</strong><hr></blockquote>
My point was not to be the defender of Bill Clintion , i understand you are angry against him because he give a ridiculous image of USA, however, this affair was built by Starr to embarasse him. So some Americans where also angry against Starr, because he let pass politic (not the best one) after the image of USA.
My point was reffering in general about this sort of way of acting. I am ok with you and by the way with most of AI people (i expect ) that sexual harrasment must be banish. In other case , i said that some people are ready to act like bitchs in order to take some advantages, even if they are not oblige to do it like it was in the past (King Louis 14 was famous by is reputation to put all the women he wanted in his bed at the contrary of his father louis 13 who was straigth as a ray of light).
From the beginning of history, there is story about infamous boss, and people ready to everything in order to take advantage. Boths need to be blame even the case of the boss is worst.