Politico: Years of excusing Bill Clinton's sexual misconducts suddenly seems....

[Scrapper]

From the info I have seen... The photographer posted that it was comedy piece and the girl in question 'was in on the joke' and not asleep. The woman who posted the photo is a paid Trump/Fox supporter. Al called for an investigation... most likely so he could make them eat their words 'on record' when they find out the details.

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

   And it IS funny, that you believe THIS bullshit!!

You obviously don't know how to read... and have some major comprehension issues.
Perhaps you can show me where I stated that I "believe THIS bullshit"????
Do I know if it is true or not?  No.  But then... neither do you.
He called for the investigation himself.  Can your precious Moore (or even tRump) say the same?  No.

[Scrapper]

That would require depth. 

If SFL were a puddle, jumping in him wouldn't even make a splash. 

+1

Winner! Winner! 
Chicken Dinner! 
Post of the Month!

[Hugo]

Still waiting for Franken's resignation.  I wonder what the hold up is?

Hard to tell. He may be consulting with lawyers and ethical advisers. His president is on record saying "you can grab 'em by the pussy..." so maybe others are wondering about the extent of their sins, and using the president as a standard of unacceptable conduct. 

But, maybe it would be best if Franken did resign and have his seat filled by a good Freedom Caucus Republican so we could get to majority vote of Republicans in the Senate who would tow the party line. Only then will be able to get stuff done. Like eliminate all taxes on the wealthiest Americans, completely scrap all health care, cut Social Security Retirement by 40%, stop funding public education, stop all funding to the arts, raise the price even more for housing, and once and for all tell the women of this country that WE will control their bodies by enacting federal laws.

Back to the good old days. Go back home Franken...your president thinks you are a whimp of a sexual predator and don't even deserve the attention you are getting.

It would be funny if it weren't for the fact that you believe this bullshit.

I really don't want to believe it but those things are the core goals of the GOP and the "Trumpeters" now gaining standing in our government. Among the things that made our nation the envy of the world was our government's attention to the welfare of the "common man". Our political class including many Democrats have lost sight of the values that promote those policies. We are paying the price and "we ain't seen nothing yet".

So. Full. Of. Shit.

Again, that you BELIEVE that, says volumes about your lack of depth and intelligence.

[Wonky3]

Still waiting for Franken's resignation.  I wonder what the hold up is?

Hard to tell. He may be consulting with lawyers and ethical advisers. His president is on record saying "you can grab 'em by the pussy..." so maybe others are wondering about the extent of their sins, and using the president as a standard of unacceptable conduct. 

But, maybe it would be best if Franken did resign and have his seat filled by a good Freedom Caucus Republican so we could get to majority vote of Republicans in the Senate who would tow the party line. Only then will be able to get stuff done. Like eliminate all taxes on the wealthiest Americans, completely scrap all health care, cut Social Security Retirement by 40%, stop funding public education, stop all funding to the arts, raise the price even more for housing, and once and for all tell the women of this country that WE will control their bodies by enacting federal laws.

Back to the good old days. Go back home Franken...your president thinks you are a whimp of a sexual predator and don't even deserve the attention you are getting.

It would be funny if it weren't for the fact that you believe this bullshit.

I really don't want to believe it but those things are the core goals of the GOP and the "Trumpeters" now gaining standing in our government. Among the things that made our nation the envy of the world was our government's attention to the welfare of the "common man". Our political class including many Democrats have lost sight of the values that promote those policies. We are paying the price and "we ain't seen nothing yet".

So. Full. Of. Shit.

Again, that you BELIEVE that, says volumes about your lack of depth and intelligence.

Wow. Brilliant rebuttal. 
Oh...you forgot to say anything.
Maybe later? I understand you have different and "opposing" views. Express them.

[tvguy]

Years of excusing Bill Clinton's sexual misconducts

The title of the thread is an assumption.

I think Bill Clinton wanted to and did have sex with other women. If I excuse that then is that worse than calling him a rapist when there is zero proof of that.
 
But I suppose if I didn't want blood or want him kicked out of office then I excused him? No. I just failed to see how it had anything to do with his job.

Did he uses his position of power to coerce women to have sex with him? Well in the most famous of his sexual deeds, Monica Lewinsky he most certainly did not. She was the one who aggressively initiated what ever went on between them.
If you don't believe me ask her.

[Wonky3]

Years of excusing Bill Clinton's sexual misconducts

The title of the thread is an assumption.

I think Bill Clinton wanted to and did have sex with other women. If I excuse that then is that worse than calling him a rapist when there is zero proof of that.
 
But I suppose if I didn't want blood or want him kicked out of office then I excused him? No. I just failed to see how it had anything to do with his job.

Did he uses his position of power to coerce women to have sex with him? Well in the most famous of his sexual deeds, Monica Lewinsky he most certainly did not. She was the one who aggressively initiated what ever went on between them.
If you don't believe me ask her.

OH BOY. I should just leave this alone...we've been down this road before. 
My point (then and now) was that Bill Clinton HAD A CHOICE. Monica Lewinsky was an INTERN. Not an innocent and moral or ethical intern, but an intern never-the-less. 
Each year we send thousands of our young people to Washington (and other places) to serve and be exposed to what they may want to someday pursue as a career. Many (I hope most) ARE young innocent and moral and we have the duty to protect them from harm. 
Clinton HAD A CHOICE. Anyone but an intern. Even an intern like Monica. 
But, I'll most likely loose this argument (again). Still, it's how I feel about it and wanted to express it one more time. 

PS: Curious that Bill didn't seem to attempt to seduce women of equal rank and stature. Dee Dee Myers was a very foxy lady who served as Clintons press secretary during his first two years. Why not go after her?

[tvguy]

Years of excusing Bill Clinton's sexual misconducts

The title of the thread is an assumption.

I think Bill Clinton wanted to and did have sex with other women. If I excuse that then is that worse than calling him a rapist when there is zero proof of that.
 
But I suppose if I didn't want blood or want him kicked out of office then I excused him? No. I just failed to see how it had anything to do with his job.

Did he uses his position of power to coerce women to have sex with him? Well in the most famous of his sexual deeds, Monica Lewinsky he most certainly did not. She was the one who aggressively initiated what ever went on between them.
If you don't believe me ask her.

OH BOY. I should just leave this alone...we've been down this road before. 
My point (then and now) was that Bill Clinton HAD A CHOICE. Monica Lewinsky was an INTERN. Not an innocent and moral or ethical intern, but an intern never-the-less. 
Each year we send thousands of our young people to Washington (and other places) to serve and be exposed to what they may want to someday pursue as a career. Many (I hope most) ARE young innocent and moral and we have the duty to protect them from harm. 
Clinton HAD A CHOICE. Anyone but an intern. Even an intern like Monica. 
But, I'll most likely loose this argument (again). Still, it's how I feel about it and wanted to express it one more time. 

PS: Curious that Bill didn't seem to attempt to seduce women of equal rank and stature. Dee Dee Myers was a very foxy lady who served as Clintons press secretary during his first two years. Why not go after her?

Yes we have argued about this before and I will NEVER make sense to me how you can play the "he was in a position power" card when it was HER who went after HIM.

Curious that Bill didn't seem to attempt to seduce women of equal rank and stature.

There ya go Wonky again. You seem to have it permanently ingrained in your mind that HE seduced HER when it was totally the other way around.
NOT according to me but according to Monica Lewinsky herself!

If I believes that He used his power to influence her I would be in agreement with you. But that's not what happened.

Each year we send thousands of our young people to Washington (and other places) to serve and be exposed to what they may want to someday pursue as a career. Many (I hope most) ARE young innocent and moral and we have the duty to protect them from harm.

She was NOT harmed for Christ sake. She got EXACTLY what she wanted and because of it she is now a millionaire.

[Wonky3]

Years of excusing Bill Clinton's sexual misconducts

The title of the thread is an assumption.

I think Bill Clinton wanted to and did have sex with other women. If I excuse that then is that worse than calling him a rapist when there is zero proof of that.
 
But I suppose if I didn't want blood or want him kicked out of office then I excused him? No. I just failed to see how it had anything to do with his job.

Did he uses his position of power to coerce women to have sex with him? Well in the most famous of his sexual deeds, Monica Lewinsky he most certainly did not. She was the one who aggressively initiated what ever went on between them.
If you don't believe me ask her.

OH BOY. I should just leave this alone...we've been down this road before. 
My point (then and now) was that Bill Clinton HAD A CHOICE. Monica Lewinsky was an INTERN. Not an innocent and moral or ethical intern, but an intern never-the-less. 
Each year we send thousands of our young people to Washington (and other places) to serve and be exposed to what they may want to someday pursue as a career. Many (I hope most) ARE young innocent and moral and we have the duty to protect them from harm. 
Clinton HAD A CHOICE. Anyone but an intern. Even an intern like Monica. 
But, I'll most likely loose this argument (again). Still, it's how I feel about it and wanted to express it one more time. 

PS: Curious that Bill didn't seem to attempt to seduce women of equal rank and stature. Dee Dee Myers was a very foxy lady who served as Clintons press secretary during his first two years. Why not go after her?

Yes we have argued about this before and I will NEVER make sense to me how you can play the "he was in a position power" card when it was HER who went after HIM.

Curious that Bill didn't seem to attempt to seduce women of equal rank and stature.

There ya go Wonky again. You seem to have it permanently ingrained in your mind that HE seduced HER when it was totally the other way around.
NOT according to me but according to Monica Lewinsky herself!

If I believes that He used his power to influence her I would be in agreement with you. But that's not what happened.

Each year we send thousands of our young people to Washington (and other places) to serve and be exposed to what they may want to someday pursue as a career. Many (I hope most) ARE young innocent and moral and we have the duty to protect them from harm.

She was NOT harmed for Christ sake. She got EXACTLY what she wanted and because of it she is now a millionaire.

Okay, we will never agree. That's okay because it really doesn't matter what we think.
What happened, happened, and the investigation was thorough and conclusive.
The president had inappropriate sexual contact with an intern in the White House. 
He had a choice. NO MAN of reasonable character can be seduced against his will.
Only if she drugged him could he claim lack of responsibility. (And drugged he may have been of little use)
So there we are.
We disagree. We won't accomplish anything by continuing to post about it, but I'll gladly read any response you have. I doubt that I will get back to you (again) about this.

PS: Sad beyond words. Bill Clinton was a gifted politician who, without these distractions, may have been able to accomplish  things that would given him a very special place in history.

[tvguy]

Years of excusing Bill Clinton's sexual misconducts

The title of the thread is an assumption.

I think Bill Clinton wanted to and did have sex with other women. If I excuse that then is that worse than calling him a rapist when there is zero proof of that.
 
But I suppose if I didn't want blood or want him kicked out of office then I excused him? No. I just failed to see how it had anything to do with his job.

Did he uses his position of power to coerce women to have sex with him? Well in the most famous of his sexual deeds, Monica Lewinsky he most certainly did not. She was the one who aggressively initiated what ever went on between them.
If you don't believe me ask her.

OH BOY. I should just leave this alone...we've been down this road before. 
My point (then and now) was that Bill Clinton HAD A CHOICE. Monica Lewinsky was an INTERN. Not an innocent and moral or ethical intern, but an intern never-the-less. 
Each year we send thousands of our young people to Washington (and other places) to serve and be exposed to what they may want to someday pursue as a career. Many (I hope most) ARE young innocent and moral and we have the duty to protect them from harm. 
Clinton HAD A CHOICE. Anyone but an intern. Even an intern like Monica. 
But, I'll most likely loose this argument (again). Still, it's how I feel about it and wanted to express it one more time. 

PS: Curious that Bill didn't seem to attempt to seduce women of equal rank and stature. Dee Dee Myers was a very foxy lady who served as Clintons press secretary during his first two years. Why not go after her?

Yes we have argued about this before and I will NEVER make sense to me how you can play the "he was in a position power" card when it was HER who went after HIM.

Curious that Bill didn't seem to attempt to seduce women of equal rank and stature.

There ya go Wonky again. You seem to have it permanently ingrained in your mind that HE seduced HER when it was totally the other way around.
NOT according to me but according to Monica Lewinsky herself!

If I believes that He used his power to influence her I would be in agreement with you. But that's not what happened.

Each year we send thousands of our young people to Washington (and other places) to serve and be exposed to what they may want to someday pursue as a career. Many (I hope most) ARE young innocent and moral and we have the duty to protect them from harm.

She was NOT harmed for Christ sake. She got EXACTLY what she wanted and because of it she is now a millionaire.

Okay, we will never agree. That's okay because it really doesn't matter what we think.
What happened, happened, and the investigation was thorough and conclusive.
The president had inappropriate sexual contact with an intern in the White House. 
He had a choice. NO MAN of reasonable character can be seduced against his will.
Only if she drugged him could he claim lack of responsibility. (And drugged he may have been of little use)
So there we are.
We disagree. We won't accomplish anything by continuing to post about it, but I'll gladly read any response you have. I doubt that I will get back to you (again) about this.

PS: Sad beyond words. Bill Clinton was a gifted politician who, without these distractions, may have been able to accomplish  things that would given him a very special place in history.

The president had inappropriate sexual contact with an intern in the White House.
I have never claimed otherwise.
He had a choice. NO MAN of reasonable character can be seduced against his will.
I have never claimed otherwise.
Only if she drugged him could he claim lack of responsibility.
I have never said he was not responsible.


What you are NOT saying now is your repeated insistence that HE took advantage of HER because of his position of power.
But it was really the other way around. SHE took advantage of him.

But you insist that what he did is an example of why we need to protect interns

So once again If I believe that He used his power to influence her I would be in agreement with you. But that's not what happened.

 I would not bother saying this AGAIN but your last post indicated you still don't get my position on this.

[Wonky3]

Years of excusing Bill Clinton's sexual misconducts

The title of the thread is an assumption.

I think Bill Clinton wanted to and did have sex with other women. If I excuse that then is that worse than calling him a rapist when there is zero proof of that.
 
But I suppose if I didn't want blood or want him kicked out of office then I excused him? No. I just failed to see how it had anything to do with his job.

Did he uses his position of power to coerce women to have sex with him? Well in the most famous of his sexual deeds, Monica Lewinsky he most certainly did not. She was the one who aggressively initiated what ever went on between them.
If you don't believe me ask her.

OH BOY. I should just leave this alone...we've been down this road before. 
My point (then and now) was that Bill Clinton HAD A CHOICE. Monica Lewinsky was an INTERN. Not an innocent and moral or ethical intern, but an intern never-the-less. 
Each year we send thousands of our young people to Washington (and other places) to serve and be exposed to what they may want to someday pursue as a career. Many (I hope most) ARE young innocent and moral and we have the duty to protect them from harm. 
Clinton HAD A CHOICE. Anyone but an intern. Even an intern like Monica. 
But, I'll most likely loose this argument (again). Still, it's how I feel about it and wanted to express it one more time. 

PS: Curious that Bill didn't seem to attempt to seduce women of equal rank and stature. Dee Dee Myers was a very foxy lady who served as Clintons press secretary during his first two years. Why not go after her?

Yes we have argued about this before and I will NEVER make sense to me how you can play the "he was in a position power" card when it was HER who went after HIM.

Curious that Bill didn't seem to attempt to seduce women of equal rank and stature.

There ya go Wonky again. You seem to have it permanently ingrained in your mind that HE seduced HER when it was totally the other way around.
NOT according to me but according to Monica Lewinsky herself!

If I believes that He used his power to influence her I would be in agreement with you. But that's not what happened.

Each year we send thousands of our young people to Washington (and other places) to serve and be exposed to what they may want to someday pursue as a career. Many (I hope most) ARE young innocent and moral and we have the duty to protect them from harm.

She was NOT harmed for Christ sake. She got EXACTLY what she wanted and because of it she is now a millionaire.

Okay, we will never agree. That's okay because it really doesn't matter what we think.
What happened, happened, and the investigation was thorough and conclusive.
The president had inappropriate sexual contact with an intern in the White House. 
He had a choice. NO MAN of reasonable character can be seduced against his will.
Only if she drugged him could he claim lack of responsibility. (And drugged he may have been of little use)
So there we are.
We disagree. We won't accomplish anything by continuing to post about it, but I'll gladly read any response you have. I doubt that I will get back to you (again) about this.

PS: Sad beyond words. Bill Clinton was a gifted politician who, without these distractions, may have been able to accomplish  things that would given him a very special place in history.

The president had inappropriate sexual contact with an intern in the White House.
I have never claimed otherwise.
He had a choice. NO MAN of reasonable character can be seduced against his will.
I have never claimed otherwise.
Only if she drugged him could he claim lack of responsibility.
I have never said he was not responsible.


What you are NOT saying now is your repeated insistence that HE took advantage of HER because of his position of power.
But it was really the other way around. SHE took advantage of him.

But you insist that what he did is an example of why we need to protect interns

So once again If I believe that He used his power to influence her I would be in agreement with you. But that's not what happened.

 I would not bother saying this AGAIN but your last post indicated you still don't get my position on this.

One was in a position of power.
One was not.
It was the responsibility of the person of power to make the moral and ethical decision. 
Damn: I said I wouldn't bother. But NO, I don''t get your position. You don't get mine. 
So maybe we just have to disagree.

[tvguy]

OH BOY. I should just leave this alone...we've been down this road before. 
My point (then and now) was that Bill Clinton HAD A CHOICE. Monica Lewinsky was an INTERN. Not an innocent and moral or ethical intern, but an intern never-the-less. 
Each year we send thousands of our young people to Washington (and other places) to serve and be exposed to what they may want to someday pursue as a career. Many (I hope most) ARE young innocent and moral and we have the duty to protect them from harm. 
Clinton HAD A CHOICE. Anyone but an intern. Even an intern like Monica. 
But, I'll most likely loose this argument (again). Still, it's how I feel about it and wanted to express it one more time. 

PS: Curious that Bill didn't seem to attempt to seduce women of equal rank and stature. Dee Dee Myers was a very foxy lady who served as Clintons press secretary during his first two years. Why not go after her?

Yes we have argued about this before and I will NEVER make sense to me how you can play the "he was in a position power" card when it was HER who went after HIM.

Curious that Bill didn't seem to attempt to seduce women of equal rank and stature.

There ya go Wonky again. You seem to have it permanently ingrained in your mind that HE seduced HER when it was totally the other way around.
NOT according to me but according to Monica Lewinsky herself!

If I believes that He used his power to influence her I would be in agreement with you. But that's not what happened.

Each year we send thousands of our young people to Washington (and other places) to serve and be exposed to what they may want to someday pursue as a career. Many (I hope most) ARE young innocent and moral and we have the duty to protect them from harm.

She was NOT harmed for Christ sake. She got EXACTLY what she wanted and because of it she is now a millionaire.

Okay, we will never agree. That's okay because it really doesn't matter what we think.
What happened, happened, and the investigation was thorough and conclusive.
The president had inappropriate sexual contact with an intern in the White House. 
He had a choice. NO MAN of reasonable character can be seduced against his will.
Only if she drugged him could he claim lack of responsibility. (And drugged he may have been of little use)
So there we are.
We disagree. We won't accomplish anything by continuing to post about it, but I'll gladly read any response you have. I doubt that I will get back to you (again) about this.

PS: Sad beyond words. Bill Clinton was a gifted politician who, without these distractions, may have been able to accomplish  things that would given him a very special place in history.

The president had inappropriate sexual contact with an intern in the White House.
I have never claimed otherwise.
He had a choice. NO MAN of reasonable character can be seduced against his will.
I have never claimed otherwise.
Only if she drugged him could he claim lack of responsibility.
I have never said he was not responsible.


What you are NOT saying now is your repeated insistence that HE took advantage of HER because of his position of power.
But it was really the other way around. SHE took advantage of him.

But you insist that what he did is an example of why we need to protect interns

So once again If I believe that He used his power to influence her I would be in agreement with you. But that's not what happened.

 I would not bother saying this AGAIN but your last post indicated you still don't get my position on this.

One was in a position of power.
One was not.
It was the responsibility of the person of power to make the moral and ethical decision. 
Damn: I said I wouldn't bother. But NO, I don''t get your position. You don't get mine. 
So maybe we just have to disagree.

If the "power" had nothing whatsoever do to with the two fooling around  then why do I care that Bill was in a position or power?
 Or more importantly why do you? Because if he did not use his "power" then all it boils down to is two people having some kind of play sex.

And I'm amazed that you could live to be 80 and not know the power sexy beautiful woman have over men.

In a nut shell Of course Bill should have not allowed this to happen. But it's just not the crime of the century like so many made it to be.
Today with weinstien and others the biggest part that people have a problem with is men using their power to coerce women.
But Bill and Monica are not an example of this. Just because bill was the more powerful one doesn't not mean he used that power.

[Wonky3]

Yes we have argued about this before and I will NEVER make sense to me how you can play the "he was in a position power" card when it was HER who went after HIM.

Curious that Bill didn't seem to attempt to seduce women of equal rank and stature.

There ya go Wonky again. You seem to have it permanently ingrained in your mind that HE seduced HER when it was totally the other way around.
NOT according to me but according to Monica Lewinsky herself!

If I believes that He used his power to influence her I would be in agreement with you. But that's not what happened.

Each year we send thousands of our young people to Washington (and other places) to serve and be exposed to what they may want to someday pursue as a career. Many (I hope most) ARE young innocent and moral and we have the duty to protect them from harm.

She was NOT harmed for Christ sake. She got EXACTLY what she wanted and because of it she is now a millionaire.

Okay, we will never agree. That's okay because it really doesn't matter what we think.
What happened, happened, and the investigation was thorough and conclusive.
The president had inappropriate sexual contact with an intern in the White House. 
He had a choice. NO MAN of reasonable character can be seduced against his will.
Only if she drugged him could he claim lack of responsibility. (And drugged he may have been of little use)
So there we are.
We disagree. We won't accomplish anything by continuing to post about it, but I'll gladly read any response you have. I doubt that I will get back to you (again) about this.

PS: Sad beyond words. Bill Clinton was a gifted politician who, without these distractions, may have been able to accomplish  things that would given him a very special place in history.

The president had inappropriate sexual contact with an intern in the White House.
I have never claimed otherwise.
He had a choice. NO MAN of reasonable character can be seduced against his will.
I have never claimed otherwise.
Only if she drugged him could he claim lack of responsibility.
I have never said he was not responsible.


What you are NOT saying now is your repeated insistence that HE took advantage of HER because of his position of power.
But it was really the other way around. SHE took advantage of him.

But you insist that what he did is an example of why we need to protect interns

So once again If I believe that He used his power to influence her I would be in agreement with you. But that's not what happened.

 I would not bother saying this AGAIN but your last post indicated you still don't get my position on this.

One was in a position of power.
One was not.
It was the responsibility of the person of power to make the moral and ethical decision. 
Damn: I said I wouldn't bother. But NO, I don''t get your position. You don't get mine. 
So maybe we just have to disagree.

If the "power" had nothing whatsoever do to with the two fooling around  then why do I care that Bill was in a position or power?
 Or more importantly why do you? Because if he did not use his "power" then all it boils down to is two people having some kind of play sex.

And I'm amazed that you could live to be 80 and not know the power sexy beautiful woman have over men.

In a nut shell Of course Bill should have not allowed this to happen. But it's just not the crime of the century like so many made it to be.
Today with weinstien and others the biggest part that people have a problem with is men using their power to coerce women.
But Bill and Monica are not an example of this. Just because bill was the more powerful one doesn't not mean he used that power.

We are at an impasse here.
I think Bill Clinton was a snake because he engaged in sex with someone inappropriate in an inappropriate place. 
Over, out, and done.
PS: Sometime we should poll the group here and see if other feel Clinton was "at fault".

[Cuzz]

Okay, we will never agree. That's okay because it really doesn't matter what we think.
What happened, happened, and the investigation was thorough and conclusive.
The president had inappropriate sexual contact with an intern in the White House. 
He had a choice. NO MAN of reasonable character can be seduced against his will.
Only if she drugged him could he claim lack of responsibility. (And drugged he may have been of little use)
So there we are.
We disagree. We won't accomplish anything by continuing to post about it, but I'll gladly read any response you have. I doubt that I will get back to you (again) about this.

PS: Sad beyond words. Bill Clinton was a gifted politician who, without these distractions, may have been able to accomplish  things that would given him a very special place in history.

The president had inappropriate sexual contact with an intern in the White House.
I have never claimed otherwise.
He had a choice. NO MAN of reasonable character can be seduced against his will.
I have never claimed otherwise.
Only if she drugged him could he claim lack of responsibility.
I have never said he was not responsible.


What you are NOT saying now is your repeated insistence that HE took advantage of HER because of his position of power.
But it was really the other way around. SHE took advantage of him.

But you insist that what he did is an example of why we need to protect interns

So once again If I believe that He used his power to influence her I would be in agreement with you. But that's not what happened.

 I would not bother saying this AGAIN but your last post indicated you still don't get my position on this.

One was in a position of power.
One was not.
It was the responsibility of the person of power to make the moral and ethical decision. 
Damn: I said I wouldn't bother. But NO, I don''t get your position. You don't get mine. 
So maybe we just have to disagree.

If the "power" had nothing whatsoever do to with the two fooling around  then why do I care that Bill was in a position or power?
 Or more importantly why do you? Because if he did not use his "power" then all it boils down to is two people having some kind of play sex.

And I'm amazed that you could live to be 80 and not know the power sexy beautiful woman have over men.

In a nut shell Of course Bill should have not allowed this to happen. But it's just not the crime of the century like so many made it to be.
Today with weinstien and others the biggest part that people have a problem with is men using their power to coerce women.
But Bill and Monica are not an example of this. Just because bill was the more powerful one doesn't not mean he used that power.

We are at an impasse here.
I think Bill Clinton was a snake because he engaged in sex with someone inappropriate in an inappropriate place. 
Over, out, and done.
PS: Sometime we should poll the group here and see if other feel Clinton was "at fault".

I'm just curious what your idea for an appropriate age of consent might be? 30? 35? We need to draw the line somewhere.

I'm not saying I approve of what Clinton did. But it was consensual so it's none of my business.

[tvguy]

Okay, we will never agree. That's okay because it really doesn't matter what we think.
What happened, happened, and the investigation was thorough and conclusive.
The president had inappropriate sexual contact with an intern in the White House. 
He had a choice. NO MAN of reasonable character can be seduced against his will.
Only if she drugged him could he claim lack of responsibility. (And drugged he may have been of little use)
So there we are.
We disagree. We won't accomplish anything by continuing to post about it, but I'll gladly read any response you have. I doubt that I will get back to you (again) about this.

PS: Sad beyond words. Bill Clinton was a gifted politician who, without these distractions, may have been able to accomplish  things that would given him a very special place in history.

The president had inappropriate sexual contact with an intern in the White House.
I have never claimed otherwise.
He had a choice. NO MAN of reasonable character can be seduced against his will.
I have never claimed otherwise.
Only if she drugged him could he claim lack of responsibility.
I have never said he was not responsible.


What you are NOT saying now is your repeated insistence that HE took advantage of HER because of his position of power.
But it was really the other way around. SHE took advantage of him.

But you insist that what he did is an example of why we need to protect interns

So once again If I believe that He used his power to influence her I would be in agreement with you. But that's not what happened.

 I would not bother saying this AGAIN but your last post indicated you still don't get my position on this.

One was in a position of power.
One was not.
It was the responsibility of the person of power to make the moral and ethical decision. 
Damn: I said I wouldn't bother. But NO, I don''t get your position. You don't get mine. 
So maybe we just have to disagree.

If the "power" had nothing whatsoever do to with the two fooling around  then why do I care that Bill was in a position or power?
 Or more importantly why do you? Because if he did not use his "power" then all it boils down to is two people having some kind of play sex.

And I'm amazed that you could live to be 80 and not know the power sexy beautiful woman have over men.

In a nut shell Of course Bill should have not allowed this to happen. But it's just not the crime of the century like so many made it to be.
Today with weinstien and others the biggest part that people have a problem with is men using their power to coerce women.
But Bill and Monica are not an example of this. Just because bill was the more powerful one doesn't not mean he used that power.

We are at an impasse here.
I think Bill Clinton was a snake because he engaged in sex with someone inappropriate in an inappropriate place. 
Over, out, and done.
PS: Sometime we should poll the group here and see if other feel Clinton was "at fault".

For the one millionth time.. I never said he was not "at fault".

[tvguy]

The president had inappropriate sexual contact with an intern in the White House.
I have never claimed otherwise.
He had a choice. NO MAN of reasonable character can be seduced against his will.
I have never claimed otherwise.
Only if she drugged him could he claim lack of responsibility.
I have never said he was not responsible.


What you are NOT saying now is your repeated insistence that HE took advantage of HER because of his position of power.
But it was really the other way around. SHE took advantage of him.

But you insist that what he did is an example of why we need to protect interns

So once again If I believe that He used his power to influence her I would be in agreement with you. But that's not what happened.

 I would not bother saying this AGAIN but your last post indicated you still don't get my position on this.

One was in a position of power.
One was not.
It was the responsibility of the person of power to make the moral and ethical decision. 
Damn: I said I wouldn't bother. But NO, I don''t get your position. You don't get mine. 
So maybe we just have to disagree.

If the "power" had nothing whatsoever do to with the two fooling around  then why do I care that Bill was in a position or power?
 Or more importantly why do you? Because if he did not use his "power" then all it boils down to is two people having some kind of play sex.

And I'm amazed that you could live to be 80 and not know the power sexy beautiful woman have over men.

In a nut shell Of course Bill should have not allowed this to happen. But it's just not the crime of the century like so many made it to be.
Today with weinstien and others the biggest part that people have a problem with is men using their power to coerce women.
But Bill and Monica are not an example of this. Just because bill was the more powerful one doesn't not mean he used that power.

We are at an impasse here.
I think Bill Clinton was a snake because he engaged in sex with someone inappropriate in an inappropriate place. 
Over, out, and done.
PS: Sometime we should poll the group here and see if other feel Clinton was "at fault".

I'm just curious what your idea for an appropriate age of consent might be? 30? 35? We need to draw the line somewhere.

I'm not saying I approve of what Clinton did. But it was consensual so it's none of my business.

That's exactly how I feel. But when I argue with Wonky about it and say what I think.  He must be sticking his fingers in his ears and talking really loud so he doesn't hear me.
Because he keeps saying things emphatically to prove his point about things I agree with

[Valuesize]

Okay, we will never agree. That's okay because it really doesn't matter what we think.
What happened, happened, and the investigation was thorough and conclusive.
The president had inappropriate sexual contact with an intern in the White House. 
He had a choice. NO MAN of reasonable character can be seduced against his will.
Only if she drugged him could he claim lack of responsibility. (And drugged he may have been of little use)
So there we are.
We disagree. We won't accomplish anything by continuing to post about it, but I'll gladly read any response you have. I doubt that I will get back to you (again) about this.

PS: Sad beyond words. Bill Clinton was a gifted politician who, without these distractions, may have been able to accomplish  things that would given him a very special place in history.

The president had inappropriate sexual contact with an intern in the White House.
I have never claimed otherwise.
He had a choice. NO MAN of reasonable character can be seduced against his will.
I have never claimed otherwise.
Only if she drugged him could he claim lack of responsibility.
I have never said he was not responsible.


What you are NOT saying now is your repeated insistence that HE took advantage of HER because of his position of power.
But it was really the other way around. SHE took advantage of him.

But you insist that what he did is an example of why we need to protect interns

So once again If I believe that He used his power to influence her I would be in agreement with you. But that's not what happened.

 I would not bother saying this AGAIN but your last post indicated you still don't get my position on this.

One was in a position of power.
One was not.
It was the responsibility of the person of power to make the moral and ethical decision. 
Damn: I said I wouldn't bother. But NO, I don''t get your position. You don't get mine. 
So maybe we just have to disagree.

If the "power" had nothing whatsoever do to with the two fooling around  then why do I care that Bill was in a position or power?
 Or more importantly why do you? Because if he did not use his "power" then all it boils down to is two people having some kind of play sex.

And I'm amazed that you could live to be 80 and not know the power sexy beautiful woman have over men.

In a nut shell Of course Bill should have not allowed this to happen. But it's just not the crime of the century like so many made it to be.
Today with weinstien and others the biggest part that people have a problem with is men using their power to coerce women.
But Bill and Monica are not an example of this. Just because bill was the more powerful one doesn't not mean he used that power.

We are at an impasse here.
I think Bill Clinton was a snake because he engaged in sex with someone inappropriate in an inappropriate place. 
Over, out, and done.
PS: Sometime we should poll the group here and see if other feel Clinton was "at fault".

I think they were equally culpable. I also agree with Cuz, not my business.

[Wonky3]

The president had inappropriate sexual contact with an intern in the White House.
I have never claimed otherwise.
He had a choice. NO MAN of reasonable character can be seduced against his will.
I have never claimed otherwise.
Only if she drugged him could he claim lack of responsibility.
I have never said he was not responsible.


What you are NOT saying now is your repeated insistence that HE took advantage of HER because of his position of power.
But it was really the other way around. SHE took advantage of him.

But you insist that what he did is an example of why we need to protect interns

So once again If I believe that He used his power to influence her I would be in agreement with you. But that's not what happened.

 I would not bother saying this AGAIN but your last post indicated you still don't get my position on this.

One was in a position of power.
One was not.
It was the responsibility of the person of power to make the moral and ethical decision. 
Damn: I said I wouldn't bother. But NO, I don''t get your position. You don't get mine. 
So maybe we just have to disagree.

If the "power" had nothing whatsoever do to with the two fooling around  then why do I care that Bill was in a position or power?
 Or more importantly why do you? Because if he did not use his "power" then all it boils down to is two people having some kind of play sex.

And I'm amazed that you could live to be 80 and not know the power sexy beautiful woman have over men.

In a nut shell Of course Bill should have not allowed this to happen. But it's just not the crime of the century like so many made it to be.
Today with weinstien and others the biggest part that people have a problem with is men using their power to coerce women.
But Bill and Monica are not an example of this. Just because bill was the more powerful one doesn't not mean he used that power.

We are at an impasse here.
I think Bill Clinton was a snake because he engaged in sex with someone inappropriate in an inappropriate place. 
Over, out, and done.
PS: Sometime we should poll the group here and see if other feel Clinton was "at fault".

I think they were equally culpable. I also agree with Cuz, not my business.

I had to go back and look at CUZZ's remarks:

I'm just curious what your idea for an appropriate age of consent might be? 30? 35? We need to draw the line somewhere. 
I'm not saying I approve of what Clinton did. But it was consensual so it's none of my business.

I guess I'm beating a dead horse here but one more time: My feeling about this is (and has been) that the president of the United States can't have a "consensual" sexual experience with an intern serving in the white house, and that it was in the white house makes it even more egregious in my opinion. 
But, my option is only that, it's over and done, we will have different takes on it for as long as we live. 

Would this scenario be worth compression? You are a 50 year old father who has a 18 year old daughter living at home. Your daughters friend approaches you with sexual suggestions on a day when the two of you are alone. She is seductive, erotic, intensely desirable and is aggressive in her approach.  You have sex with her in your daughters bed. In my mind you are an evil bastard because you HAD A CHOICE! And you made a BAD choice. Was it consensual? Yes. Was it right?

[Cuzz]

One was in a position of power.
One was not.
It was the responsibility of the person of power to make the moral and ethical decision. 
Damn: I said I wouldn't bother. But NO, I don''t get your position. You don't get mine. 
So maybe we just have to disagree.

If the "power" had nothing whatsoever do to with the two fooling around  then why do I care that Bill was in a position or power?
 Or more importantly why do you? Because if he did not use his "power" then all it boils down to is two people having some kind of play sex.

And I'm amazed that you could live to be 80 and not know the power sexy beautiful woman have over men.

In a nut shell Of course Bill should have not allowed this to happen. But it's just not the crime of the century like so many made it to be.
Today with weinstien and others the biggest part that people have a problem with is men using their power to coerce women.
But Bill and Monica are not an example of this. Just because bill was the more powerful one doesn't not mean he used that power.

We are at an impasse here.
I think Bill Clinton was a snake because he engaged in sex with someone inappropriate in an inappropriate place. 
Over, out, and done.
PS: Sometime we should poll the group here and see if other feel Clinton was "at fault".

I think they were equally culpable. I also agree with Cuz, not my business.

I had to go back and look at CUZZ's remarks:

I'm just curious what your idea for an appropriate age of consent might be? 30? 35? We need to draw the line somewhere. 
I'm not saying I approve of what Clinton did. But it was consensual so it's none of my business.

I guess I'm beating a dead horse here but one more time: My feeling about this is (and has been) that the president of the United States can't have a "consensual" sexual experience with an intern serving in the white house, and that it was in the white house makes it even more egregious in my opinion. 
But, my option is only that, it's over and done, we will have different takes on it for as long as we live. 

Would this scenario be worth compression? You are a 50 year old father who has a 18 year old daughter living at home. Your daughters friend approaches you with sexual suggestions on a day when the two of you are alone. She is seductive, erotic, intensely desirable and is aggressive in her approach.  You have sex with her in your daughters bed. In my mind you are an evil bastard because you HAD A CHOICE! And you made a BAD choice. Was it consensual? Yes. Was it right?

I seems you would advocate an age of consent based not on absolute age so much as an age difference? What age difference would you define that as? Would it be on a sliding scale? Maybe based on absolute ages of the participants? You should remember too that while you are aiming to penalize older people from taking some kind of advantage of a younger partner (I assume) you might be infringing the rights of the younger participant too.

See it gets kind of messy if you're trying to change the current laws. If you're not and you're just bitching, then yeah, we get that. You've repeated yourself enough. Doing it again won't change anything. I think you just like have the last word in any discussion.   

[Wonky3]

If the "power" had nothing whatsoever do to with the two fooling around  then why do I care that Bill was in a position or power?
 Or more importantly why do you? Because if he did not use his "power" then all it boils down to is two people having some kind of play sex.

And I'm amazed that you could live to be 80 and not know the power sexy beautiful woman have over men.

In a nut shell Of course Bill should have not allowed this to happen. But it's just not the crime of the century like so many made it to be.
Today with weinstien and others the biggest part that people have a problem with is men using their power to coerce women.
But Bill and Monica are not an example of this. Just because bill was the more powerful one doesn't not mean he used that power.

We are at an impasse here.
I think Bill Clinton was a snake because he engaged in sex with someone inappropriate in an inappropriate place. 
Over, out, and done.
PS: Sometime we should poll the group here and see if other feel Clinton was "at fault".

I think they were equally culpable. I also agree with Cuz, not my business.

I had to go back and look at CUZZ's remarks:

I'm just curious what your idea for an appropriate age of consent might be? 30? 35? We need to draw the line somewhere. 
I'm not saying I approve of what Clinton did. But it was consensual so it's none of my business.

I guess I'm beating a dead horse here but one more time: My feeling about this is (and has been) that the president of the United States can't have a "consensual" sexual experience with an intern serving in the white house, and that it was in the white house makes it even more egregious in my opinion. 
But, my option is only that, it's over and done, we will have different takes on it for as long as we live. 

Would this scenario be worth compression? You are a 50 year old father who has a 18 year old daughter living at home. Your daughters friend approaches you with sexual suggestions on a day when the two of you are alone. She is seductive, erotic, intensely desirable and is aggressive in her approach.  You have sex with her in your daughters bed. In my mind you are an evil bastard because you HAD A CHOICE! And you made a BAD choice. Was it consensual? Yes. Was it right?

I seems you would advocate an age of consent based not on absolute age so much as an age difference? What age difference would you define that as? Would it be on a sliding scale? Maybe based on absolute ages of the participants? You should remember too that while you are aiming to penalize older people from taking some kind of advantage of a younger partner (I assume) you might be infringing the rights of the younger participant too.

See it gets kind of messy if you're trying to change the current laws. If you're not and you're just bitching, then yeah, we get that. You've repeated yourself enough. Doing it again won't change anything. I think you just like have the last word in any discussion.   

Come on...I'm not all about having the last word! But TVguy and I have this wide difference of opinion and I don't want to simply  concede the point. 
I think I want to be done with this, but really find hard to not respond to something I see as looking at it ass backwards.
But I can. 

[tvguy]

One was in a position of power.
One was not.
It was the responsibility of the person of power to make the moral and ethical decision. 
Damn: I said I wouldn't bother. But NO, I don''t get your position. You don't get mine. 
So maybe we just have to disagree.

If the "power" had nothing whatsoever do to with the two fooling around  then why do I care that Bill was in a position or power?
 Or more importantly why do you? Because if he did not use his "power" then all it boils down to is two people having some kind of play sex.

And I'm amazed that you could live to be 80 and not know the power sexy beautiful woman have over men.

In a nut shell Of course Bill should have not allowed this to happen. But it's just not the crime of the century like so many made it to be.
Today with weinstien and others the biggest part that people have a problem with is men using their power to coerce women.
But Bill and Monica are not an example of this. Just because bill was the more powerful one doesn't not mean he used that power.

We are at an impasse here.
I think Bill Clinton was a snake because he engaged in sex with someone inappropriate in an inappropriate place. 
Over, out, and done.
PS: Sometime we should poll the group here and see if other feel Clinton was "at fault".

I think they were equally culpable. I also agree with Cuz, not my business.

I had to go back and look at CUZZ's remarks:

I'm just curious what your idea for an appropriate age of consent might be? 30? 35? We need to draw the line somewhere. 
I'm not saying I approve of what Clinton did. But it was consensual so it's none of my business.

I guess I'm beating a dead horse here but one more time: My feeling about this is (and has been) that the president of the United States can't have a "consensual" sexual experience with an intern serving in the white house, and that it was in the white house makes it even more egregious in my opinion. 
But, my option is only that, it's over and done, we will have different takes on it for as long as we live. 

Would this scenario be worth compression? You are a 50 year old father who has a 18 year old daughter living at home. Your daughters friend approaches you with sexual suggestions on a day when the two of you are alone. She is seductive, erotic, intensely desirable and is aggressive in her approach.  You have sex with her in your daughters bed. In my mind you are an evil bastard because you HAD A CHOICE! And you made a BAD choice. Was it consensual? Yes. Was it right?

But, my option is only that, it's over and done,

And after that comment you continued on with your "scenario" LOL


I wonder why in YOUR scenario the female is 18 years old which is 4 years younger than Lewinski a 24 year old adult?
And how in the hell does a man screwing his daughters girl friend compare?????????
And in his daughters bed???
How did you come up with this? It happened to you?

And because it was in the white house why is that a big deal? The white house was Bill Clinton's home.
If  not for an unnecessary investigation about the president having sex we would have never known.
And that would have been fine. because like others have said. It's none of our business.

 
[/url]
 [url=https://www.pinterest.com/pin/create/link/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpeople.com%2Fpolitics%2Fformer-top-advisers-to-president-obama-and-the-clintons-voice-support-for-monica-lewinsky%2F&media=https%3A%2F%2Fpeopledotcom.files.wordpress.com%2F2017%2F05%2Fmonica-lewinsky-roger-ailes.jpg&description=Forbes%20Under%2030%20Summit]