cal50 Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 They were grown, legal age women, who fell over themselves all aflutter with Clinton's power and virility (one and the same as far as sexual psychology is concerned). Women are attracted to power and wealth. Clinton had both. It made him good mating material - with ample ability to provide for the survival and prosperity of any potential offspring - and they happily mated. He wasn't "using sex to have power over someone" (I suspect that only someone whose own mindset revolves around the will to power - i.e. a Republican - would even interpret it this way). Quite the opposite: he was using his power to have sex with someone. It's simple: he was horny, and his position gave him opportunities. Your interpretation seems to suggest that he was sadistic and his penis gave him opportunities to dominate someone. Is that the way sex works for you? We may recognize the asymmetry of the relationship. We may recognize that those women - swept away by the man - were not thinking realistically about what they were doing. But to paint them as victims is to infantilize them - an atavistic affectation of Victorian attitudes toward "the weaker sex". They were not helpless infants. Flawed, naive, self-deceiving maybe, but not helpless infants. Go ahead and criticize the behavior - on either side, or both - but the attempts to make the man into a rapist ("sexual predation"....), as if his oval office hanky-panky somehow equated with his successor's feckless malfeasance, false wars, and economic nincompoopery (indeed - the ridiculous assertion of some here that Clinton's misdeeds are even worse), are just pathetic. Well that covers Clinton's morals or lack of ( and shows his value's towards his wife). How about the perjury, obstruction or lying under oath? I guess if you can lie to you wife convincingly expanding it to a larger scale or platform is not a problem either. That DNA on the dress caused a mess..... I wonder how many married guys can receive a BJ at work and still remain married? In Clinton's case his behavior as when any married man cheats on his wife he opens the door for negative allegations. Given the numbers Bill was racking up maybe they were all willing participants or maybe not. The answer is no one knows except the people involved. The guy proved he has loose morals, lies and under oath to boot. If you want to defend this type of behavior then go for it. If nothing else it show a pattern and lends credibility to a charge that was levied against him. Maybe a fun guy to have a beer with but if he is around your wife or car he will try to throw a rod on both. By contrast if it was a republican type they would be burned at the stake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 (edited) Retro - Stop making excuses for a man who used his power and authority to take sexual advantage of women and then lied about. Any CEO accused of such behavior would be burned at the stake by people such as yourself. By the way, I love your attempt at innuendo about me as a way to deflect the criticism of Clinton's sexual predation. Way to make a credible argument! Edited August 30, 2012 by TomServo92 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 She was an intern. Any business executive who did that would have been fired and sued for sexual harassment. Doing it outside of work with women who don't work for you is fine. Doing it in your office with an intern is sexual predation and sexual harassment. He had the power to fire her if she had said no to his advances - that's the power in a business relationship and it has nothing to do with politics. There is no way you guys can defend that. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Ed, sunlight and fresh air would be two things you need to get more of.... You need to lighten up a bit, go see a funny movie or something. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Mark, here is what you said: Nothing about the comments, just the fact that she re-tweeted them. Good times. Did you read the article? She did RE-TWEET the comments, which I called stupid, childish and inexcuseable. I know you do understand the meaning of those words. How on earth is this a defense of Barkin. If anything it seems that she isn't capable of making up her own insults. What I did point out was that Nap's attempt to tie Edstock to Barkin is silly. There is nothing to establish that Ed even heard of the Barkin Tweet ( I apologize Ed if you really are following Barkin on Twitter). To lump Ed in with Barkin and ascribe her comments to him is excatly the same as lumping Nap in with the comments of Nugent, Williams, Jr. and Coulter (all of which are far better known than Barkin's Tweet) because Nap didn't condemn those statements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Let me help you Mark...in post#103 I posted the comments about ellen barken being a hater and that was in reference to ed's comment....THEN...... you chimed in to defend her (#109) and as usual tried to do a "tit for tat" demo/repub. to justify what she said....and THEN in #111 I answered you......I'm done...talking to you like dealing with a 5th grader... I didn't defend her, unless you consider Stupid, Childish and Inexcuseable to be some forms of compliment. If that's the case, please feel free consider your post to be stupid childish and inexcuseable. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 (edited) They were grown, legal age women, who fell over themselves all aflutter with Clinton's power and virility (one and the same as far as sexual psychology is concerned). Women are attracted to power and wealth. Clinton had both. It made him good mating material - with ample ability to provide for the survival and prosperity of any potential offspring - and they happily mated. He wasn't "using sex to have power over someone" (I suspect that only someone whose own mindset revolves around the will to power - i.e. a Republican - would even interpret it this way). Quite the opposite: he was using his power to have sex with someone. It's simple: he was horny, and his position gave him opportunities. Your interpretation seems to suggest that he was sadistic and his penis gave him opportunities to dominate someone. Is that the way sex works for you? We may recognize the asymmetry of the relationship. We may recognize that those women - swept away by the man - were not thinking realistically about what they were doing. But to paint them as victims is to infantilize them - an atavistic affectation of Victorian attitudes toward "the weaker sex". They were not helpless infants. Flawed, naive, self-deceiving maybe, but not helpless infants. Go ahead and criticize the behavior - on either side, or both - but the attempts to make the man into a rapist ("sexual predation"....), as if his oval office hanky-panky somehow equated with his successor's feckless malfeasance, false wars, and economic nincompoopery (indeed - the ridiculous assertion of some here that Clinton's misdeeds are even worse), are just pathetic. Let's remember how this whole thing started. For years, feminists had been working to both raise awareness of sexual harrassment (not necessarily a bad thing - it does happen) and broaden the definition of what behavior constituted sexual harassment (this is where the problems started). The Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, along with the Tailhook "scandal" (never mind that many of the female "victims" were actually eager partcipicants, and traveled to the Tailhook convention specifically to take part in the fun-and-games!) gave them their platform. The 1992 elections became the "Year of the Women," and Hillary Clinton herself was happy to ride the wave as her husband's partner. In Pennsylvania, Democratic candidate Lynn Yeakel almost defeated long-term Republican Senator Arlen Spector in the race for a U.S. Senate seat specifically because he had actually dared to aggressively question Anita Hill's claims. Sexual harrassment "education" was instituted at companies as they worked to protect themselves from lawsuits. (I suffered, along with my co-workers, through more than one session.) Institutions of higher learning announced that professors could not date students - even if the student was willing and eager - because the professor's position of authority meant that the relationship could not possibly be equal and without coercion on the part of the professor. Same with a boss-subordinate relationship in a private company or government bureaucracy. This "Victorian" attitude was fostered by liberals and feminists, NOT Republicans and conservatives. They just turned these arguments against the candidate who had helped ride the issue into office, and was the favorite of the left at that time. They merely held him to the legal standards that his supporters had espoused. Other people had lost jobs doing the exact same thing that Bill Clinton did. Watching feminists squirm while uttering inane defenses on Clinton's behalf was the most entertaining part of the entire spectacle. The only thing better was listening to the deafening silence from NOW during the O.J. Simpson trial, as credible witnesses described how he beat his former wife, Nicole Brown Simpson. NOW held back because he was an African-American, according to Tammy Bruce. She resigned in disgust from the Los Angeles NOW Chapter after it censured her for daring to focus on the domestic violence angle. There is no doubt that if, say, retired Dallas Cowboys quarterback Roger Staubach had been the accused, NOW would have been leading anti-domestic violence rallies every day at his trial. If you are upset over what happened to President Clinton, I'd suggest venting your ire at the people who made the entire episode possible in the first place. Namely, feminists, and that includes his wife. If you really believe that it's okay for a supervisor to receive even oral sex from a willing and gullible intern, I'd suggest you run that scenario by your company's legal department and get their reaction. Republicans just had the gall to hold him to the same standards as everyone else. For which we should all be saying, "Thank you." Edited August 30, 2012 by grbeck 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 (edited) She did RE-TWEET the comments, which I called stupid, childish and inexcuseable. I know you do understand the meaning of those words. Mark, these are your exact words: Barkin's re-tweet of those comments was stupid, childish and inexcuseable. You probably meant to say that about the comments, but that is not what you said. Freudian slip much? Easy big guy, I am just teasing you any way. You lawyers are so good with words that it is fun to tweak you a bit when you misspeak (or type). All of this is just a diversion from the real problem. This is like a cow telling the one in front of it that it has a stinky butt, as they wait in line at the slaughter house. Unless we can get some real action on the deficit and the debt, no one is going to care about tweets when you can't buy a gallon of gas for any number of dollars. Edited August 30, 2012 by xr7g428 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Republicans just had the gall to hold him to the same standards as everyone else. For which we should all be saying, "Thank you." It was a colossal waste of the taxpayers time and money - especially considering what went down just a few years later, and the very real threats this country was (and is) facing in the world. Look, we may share some common ground on the whole PC thing - I don't like it either. We live in the real world - even you do. I have known several cases by now of people in the corner offices - both sexes by the way - having affairs with their subordinates, including all the way down to intern level. If you remain blissfully unaware that this goes on, and that - mostly, as long as it is consensual, discrete, and doesn't end badly in some way, they do not lose their jobs over it - then you have a happy life indeed. I, on the other hand, remain as mystified by the intricacies of pulling off such an affair in this world of flapping jaws, jealous rage, zealous divorce attorneys on the one hand, and PC-laden HR departments on the other as I was about sex in general when I was still in Jr. High School. I wouldn't have a clue how to go about it, even if I were so inclined. (Ok - even when I am so inclined.) Whenever there is a window - and there have been windows of opportunity, I only recognize it in hindsight. I'm a little slow on the draw that way. By the way, I had occasion recently to read the policy manual at a large company (not corrective or punitive I hasten to point out), and I noticed that some element of pragmatism seemed to be creeping its way back in. There was wording that suggested a tentative move away from the zero-tolerance of former times, and more toward individual (mutual) discretion. Interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB390fe Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 You mean like Republicans = nazi's or stupid? I'm kinda disturbed by your constant efforts to dehumanize your conservative opponents by constant name calling - trying to make them look like "untermensien " (sorry German was a long time ago) - so that is your justification to mistreat them. Nice liberal attitude. Stalin commited just as many atrocities in the name of the Left as Hitler did on the right. - I don't think your Stalin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) Edstock is Canadian. It's important to remember that when you see his political posts. Edited August 31, 2012 by RangerM 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Edstock is Canadian. It's important to remember that when you see his political posts. They're ripe with the smell of back bacon! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) You mean like Republicans = nazi's or stupid? I'm kinda disturbed by your constant efforts to dehumanize your conservative opponents by constant name calling - trying to make them look like "untermensien " (sorry German was a long time ago) - so that is your justification to mistreat them. Nice liberal attitude. Stalin commited just as many atrocities in the name of the Left as Hitler did on the right. - I don't think your Stalin. I'm quite certain that Voltaire wasn't referencing the Nazis or Stalin(unless he had some kind of time machine), but human nature in general. There are many, many examples both before and after Voltaire's time. Edited August 31, 2012 by Mark B. Morrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 You mean like Republicans = nazi's or stupid? I'm kinda disturbed by your constant efforts to dehumanize your conservative opponents by constant name calling - trying to make them look like "untermensien " (sorry German was a long time ago) - so that is your justification to mistreat them. Nice liberal attitude. Stalin commited just as many atrocities in the name of the Left as Hitler did on the right. - I don't think your Stalin. Hitler and Stalin were both on the left. Don't defame our side like that. The right stands for small government. The left stands for big government. When big governments fight each other, one of them isn't right and one left. They are both left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) It was a colossal waste of the taxpayers time and money - especially considering what went down just a few years later, and the very real threats this country was (and is) facing in the world. Look, we may share some common ground on the whole PC thing - I don't like it either. We live in the real world - even you do. I have known several cases by now of people in the corner offices - both sexes by the way - having affairs with their subordinates, including all the way down to intern level. If you remain blissfully unaware that this goes on, and that - mostly, as long as it is consensual, discrete, and doesn't end badly in some way, they do not lose their jobs over it - then you have a happy life indeed. I, on the other hand, remain as mystified by the intricacies of pulling off such an affair in this world of flapping jaws, jealous rage, zealous divorce attorneys on the one hand, and PC-laden HR departments on the other as I was about sex in general when I was still in Jr. High School. I wouldn't have a clue how to go about it, even if I were so inclined. (Ok - even when I am so inclined.) Whenever there is a window - and there have been windows of opportunity, I only recognize it in hindsight. I'm a little slow on the draw that way. By the way, I had occasion recently to read the policy manual at a large company (not corrective or punitive I hasten to point out), and I noticed that some element of pragmatism seemed to be creeping its way back in. There was wording that suggested a tentative move away from the zero-tolerance of former times, and more toward individual (mutual) discretion. Interesting. Everyone accused of something believes that the resulting trial was a waste of time. If Bill Clinton didn't want to be subject to the ordeal, he should not have used the issue to win the 1992 election, and then watched what he was doing once he did win. It wasn't as though he behaved like Beaver Cleaver in his relations with women prior to the election. I have sympathy for someone when the opposition is gunning for him or her. The Republicans were definitely gunning for Clinton. My sympathy evaporates when the person in question has generously handed the opposition their ammunition. At any rate, I'm not seeing why he should be granted a pass on behavior that got others fired and disgraced. Are the standards covering relationships in the workplace hard to follow, and often at odds with how things work in the real world? Yes, but, remember, Newt Gingrich, Jerry Falwell, Phyllis Schlafly and the Republican National Committee did not draft them. Edited August 31, 2012 by grbeck 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB390fe Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Hitler and Stalin were both on the left. Don't defame our side like that. The right stands for small government. The left stands for big government. When big governments fight each other, one of them isn't right and one left. They are both left. I'm going to disagree... too much to one side or the other you tend to get the same result. That's why one can't seem to tell the difference between the two... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 (edited) You mean like Republicans = nazi's or stupid? I'm kinda disturbed by your constant efforts to dehumanize your conservative opponents Voltaire, unlike a lot of Goppers, could think for himself. I have never engaged in the trying to "dehumanize" Goppers, how could I, when their whole mental outlook is one of rationalization, which is one of mankind's essential human qualities? Remember, man is a rationalizing animal, not always a rational animal. And so it goes. Here's an example: Rush Limbaugh says Obama manipulated hurricane forecasts to delay GOP convention. Edited September 1, 2012 by Edstock 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 Tom the Dancing Bug 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 Tom the Dancing Bug That explains a lot.... I bet you have a matching coloring book and pajamas too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_spaniard Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 Wow, another political thread devolves into personal insults? :beatdeadhorse: What pleasant surprise. :slapfight: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 Wow, another political thread devolves into personal insults? :beatdeadhorse: What pleasant surprise. :slapfight: Yep....that was sooooooo over the top. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_spaniard Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 Yep....that was sooooooo over the top. Does the level of it matter? Oh so predictable for these political threads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 Does the level of it matter? Oh so predictable for these political threads. Yep. But look at it from Cal's perspective: the GOP is screwing-up big-time with embarrassments like Akin, and there's nothing Cal or any of the Goppers can do to deny it, so we get ad hominem attacks on those who point out their delusions. There's not much they can do about the GOP lunacy, until they finally figure out that the Gopper élite is not their friend. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.