GatewayRedbirds.com

Schlich wrote: Juanita Broaderick probably has something to say about that.

Ken Starr didn't even go there.

I've really enjoyed Paul Simon and Alicia Keys so far, but what's going on here? Obama did something similar but with wildly acclaimed artists. It was kinda weird but definitely unique. I'm leaning Scott Baio now.

<cringe>

obucard wrote:Saw this on Facebook, thought it was funny.

[SHOW]

This is three miles from my house. Jeff Cook has some funny stuff.

ghostrunner wrote:

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:She wanted that cigar in her [expletive].

That might be, but I think it's weird how Bill's always gotten a pass from liberals on that. He was in the position of power, and even if she came on to him it's on him to reject the 21 year old intern.

I saw a Ted Talk by her a couple months ago and found her attitude pretty impressive.

A reluctance to part with the person who was president during an economic boom...but, he was kind of in the background in 2000. 2004. Only in the last 8 years has he really been a more prominent figure. It's still uncomfortable to think about.

Michael wrote:

stlouie_lipp wrote:

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:She wanted that cigar in her [expletive].

Is there a better example of sexual harassment in the workplace than the most powerful man in the world taking it to an intern? But the champion of women's rights stood by her man because is was politically expedient.

I think this is unfair. We have no idea what the dynamics of their marriage is like and I don't think this is a woman's rights issue.

Well to be fair bill had the floor last night to talk precisely about the dynamics of their marriage and while I watched there was nothing but folksy bs stories from yesterdecades.

And it doesn't take much imagination to see the juxtaposition of being a huge womens' rights champion and standing by a guy that was at best taking advantage of his power to sleep with women.

I don't know if it falls to the level of harassment but I find it unethical and the exact type of behavior equality champions and feminists and whoever should be fighting.

stlouie_lipp wrote:

pioneer98 wrote:

stlouie_lipp wrote:

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:She wanted that cigar in her [expletive].

Is there a better example of sexual harassment in the workplace than the most powerful man in the world taking it to an intern? But the champion of women's rights stood by her man because is was politically expedient.

Yes, Hillary should have divorced him, exactly like it says in the Bible to do. That's why Evangelicals love Trump - his divorces are great proof of his Christian faith.

Huh? No idea what that has to do with my post.

OK.

Are you saying Hillary supposed to divorce Bill over the Monica incident? Is that what people are saying here?

pioneer98 wrote:Are you saying Hillary supposed to divorce Bill over the Monica incident? Is that what people are saying here?

I think AW and Lipp believe that it is disingenuous for Hillary to be painted as a portrait for women's rights when she stood by her philandering husband, who used the power of his office to carry on an affair.

Also, liberals celebrating the former president for talking about women's rights considering his transgressions is bad form

Cheddar Tom wrote:

ghostrunner wrote:

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:She wanted that cigar in her [expletive].

That might be, but I think it's weird how Bill's always gotten a pass from liberals on that. He was in the position of power, and even if she came on to him it's on him to reject the 21 year old intern.

I saw a Ted Talk by her a couple months ago and found her attitude pretty impressive.

A reluctance to part with the person who was president during an economic boom...but, he was kind of in the background in 2000. 2004. Only in the last 8 years has he really been a more prominent figure. It's still uncomfortable to think about.

I understood and even backed the it was just sex defense there for a while. The perjury is what got him impeached, but the whole underlying issue, in my mind for a while, was just ridiculous.

For the record, I was in grade school when the whole thing happened. So, my original impression followed my parents notions that it was terrible to cheat on your spouse (still hold this view) and perjury was a crime (still hold this view).

But, then I got into college and the seriousness of sex sort of wore off with each, well, transgression of my own. The line of right/wrong in the Clinton's scenario became more and more blurred. I mean, sure it's wrong to cheat on/betray your spouse. But, who was I to judge the relationship when it became more and more clear that their marriage may have been a political ally just as much as a typical marriage? Certainly not my place. And, he only lied about having sex...so...was it really that bad? Perhaps not.

Then, I got into the real world and saw how creeps can use their positions of power to influence young females. I don't think sexual harassment, as in bosses forcing underlings to have sex with them, is as rampant as it once was. But, I have seen how some people can really skirt the lines. I am familiar with a lawsuit where a boss did everything but cross the line. The actions were recorded and a lawyer for the lady basically said, yeah....that guy is a creep but no judge is going to find it to be sexual harassment. I certainly feel these guys that operate in that barely legal grey zone are predators and give a legitimate reason for a strong proponent for womens' rights to be in charge. And, it brings me back to thinking Clinton was firmly in the wrong for what he did, albeit for different reasons than originally thought.