She was 24. And I was 24 once. I held myself accountable then, and I never felt any reason to sleep with anyone, superior or no superior, except because I wanted to.

Sorry, I don't think a woman is a "victim" in that situation. In the form of coersion to keep the job, absolutely. But not between two willing participants.

You mean like Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley and Juanita Broaddrick?...Monica Lewinsky proved Clinton's use of his power to prey on his underlings, Paula Jones was the party accusing Clinton of sexual harassment, Bill Clinton saw fit to sign the law that allowed the investigation into work place sexual history to prove the charge of sexual harassment.

Actually, there is considerable doubt. Since both Gore and Kerry would have had a resistant, as opposed to whorishly on their backs, congress; spending would likely have been no worse than under Clinton, and perhaps better than under Clinton instead of expanding at four times the rate it did under Clinton.

Do you even have a clue as to how much the Bush'ists are spending and on what?

No, I didn't think so.

I must have missed the Democrats calling for spending cuts. I know Bush has called for decreasing the size of government, but I am pretty darned sure it is Democrat party platform to increase spending beyond what Bush has capitulated to...Correct me with FACTS if I am wrong...(by facts I mean other than your or lewrockwell's conspiracy laden nonsense).

Do you mean how much Bush has capitulated to Democrat spending programs?...I would be interested, if you have a credible link, to "Bush'ists spending" above and beyond that constructed by the Democrats. If Bush didn't spend like a Democrat they would be squealing like a stuck pig, I suppose he has bigger fish to fry.

I'm not arguing that Lewinsky was a "victim" so much as I am that the Clinton exhibited extremely poor judgment and an extremely low moral threshold. He should not have seduced an intern, whether she was willing or not. And not in the oval office.

Clinton is responsible for the nutjobs taking control of the country. In their zeal to put someone "moral" on the job, the American right installed an immoral idiot, but one that doesn't cheat on his wife.

Maybe I shouldn't, but I blame Clinton for the sad state of our country today. Bush was an extreme overreaction to an extremely bad decision on Clinton's part.

Gore got 500,000 more votes than Bush in the 2000 election. Do you think he would've gotten more than that if the Clinton drama didn't take place?

You bet. And even more so without the disgusting "pardons for sale" scandal. Not to mention Hillary's "gift registry" or whatever the hell it was.

If not for Clinton's personal and ethical failings, Mul would be yelling at passing cars, where he belongs :)

If that happened to me, I sure as hell wouldn't wait 20 years and the dude to move on, hold different jobs, then become president to bring it up.

If someone did that to me, I'd be addressing it 20 years ago. Wouldn't you? Would you wait 20 years, everyone moved on to different jobs long, long ago........

Makes me wonder of the accuracy of the "claims."

Remember, Gore made the decision to distance himself from Clinton. In hindsight that may have been a bad decision, but the stench around the guy when he left office was pretty powerful.

Hence, Dumb King George.

Clinton's indiscretions had no effect on Gore, other than painting Gore as a bore...Gore would have done a lot worse had the media not been enhancing his PR...The media skewed 2000 as they skewed 2004.

"There's one other base here, the media. Let's talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win and I think they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards I'm talking about the establishment media, not Fox. They're going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and there's going to be this glow about them, collective glow, the two of them, that's going to be worth maybe 15 points."

Evan Thomas of Newsweak.

I don't agree. He was rather popular when he left.

Only compared to George Bush.

Dude, it was something like in the 60s....that's pretty high....

Here's an interesting piece of political trivia:

Clinton’s VNS exit poll job approval ratings did vary considerably across the 50 states and the District of Columbia and tell an interesting story. They ranged from an 87% high in D.C. to a 39% low in Wyoming, home of GOP vice-presidential candidate Dick Cheney. (See table, below.)

Gore won 17 of the 18 states (including D.C.) where Clinton’s job rating was at or above the national average of 57%. Which state didn’t fit this pattern? No surprise. Florida (where Clinton’s positive rating was 58%) was the one state that Gore didn’t "carry" when the rating of Clinton’s job performance was at or above the national 57% average.

Bush won 29 of the 33 states where Clinton’s job performance was below the national average. The other four states that Gore was able to win had Clinton job performance ratings just below the national average: Iowa and Wisconsin (56%), Oregon (55%) and New Mexico (52%).

Another way to view how Clinton’s job approval ratings and the election results interplayed is that every state with Clinton ratings of 60% or more went to Gore. Every state with Clinton job ratings 51% or lower went to Bush. The election was decided in states where Clinton’s job ratings ranged from 52% to 58%. These 18 states split, with 11 going to Bush and seven going to Gore.

Had Gore called upon Clinton to campaign for the Democratic ticket in some of these states, the results might have been different. Remember that it would have taken only one of the Bush states to go for Gore to change the results of the 2000 election.

Obviously.

Quote:

I know Bush has called for decreasing the size of government, but I am pretty darned sure it is Democrat party platform to increase spending beyond what Bush has capitulated to...Correct me with FACTS if I am wrong...(by facts I mean other than your or lewrockwell's conspiracy laden nonsense).

Read The Two Faces of Bush Conservatism which appears in the current issue of The New American, the magazine published by the John Birch Society. I own a copy, you'll have to download the article. Also, in the same issue read The Conservative Index which documents quite well exactly what I stated. You should try reading a few real conservative sources for a change, you might just learn something.
http://www.amconmag.com/

http://www.vdare.com
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/archives.asp?AUTHOR_ID=185
http://www.brianwilson.net/

To rise that high in the food chain, the individual must waiver and bend to the necessary evils. There has to be some "selling of the soul" and stepping on other's backs to rise. Each is imperfect in different ways. None of them is innocent.

Also, Patsy when I want your opinion about my political association I'll ask for it. Until then, continue reading my posts like the Santa Claus wannabe that you are. Secede and we'll smack your confederate nation down again.

Love, David

Keep in mind that most men here either objectify or infantilize women, so you can see how their view would/could never alter.

sorry, but I think the same hold true if the gender is reversed. Supervisor/subordinate relationships are stupid, wrong and very likely harassment.

ymmv. but when you get sued and fired, don't say I didn't warn ya...

What the hell is all this crap?...I opened 3 links and I got buttkiss. I got a bunch of your brainwashing crap, but nothing tangible.

Give me a direct link that explains in overt detail, without overt prejudice, how the Democrats have a a plan for smaller government and how Bush's spending exceeds that of DemocRATs.

Let me help you out on this one, Patsy...That link does not exist. This should have been your response...A more objective response, which I do not expect from you, would be something like, "yes, you are right, Maul, Bush isn't spending near what the Democrat would be spending. In fact, Maul, the Democrats would not only be spending more, but making us more vulnerable to attack in the process."