Subject:
|
More Clinton (was Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:43:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
423 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Tim Courtney wrote:
> > However, you missed the point above. Starr
> > found things like perjury and tampering with witnesses, not sex.
>
> Didn't say he didn't. But you missed the point too. Clinton (slimeball
> that he is) decided to hide his behaviour because if he hadn't he would
> have lost the Jones lawsuit. I have no doubt he harassed her, none
> whatever. My point, and I'll repeat it more carefully, is that I don't
> think:
Ok, I see now.
> 1. the law against sexual harassement, as currently written, is valid
> (1)
> 2. the rulings that force people to testify about affairs, past AND
> future (Lewinsky was a future affair), are valid.
> 3. Clinton has any moral courage. If he doesn't believe in that law, he
> should come out and say so. If he does believe in that law, he should
> have testified honestly.
How is the sexual harassment law written? Why would Clinton's not 'believing'
in that law make a difference? I can say I don't believe a wall is there and
run in its direction and fall down and get a concussion. Just because I don't
believe the wall is there doesn't make it cease to exist. The law is still
the law, and whether he likes it or not, he will be held accountable to it.
Someone else had a statement somewhere in this thread that said that he should
be held to the UCMJ. I'm for that too. He's the leader of this country, he
should set an example. I realize that everyone makes mistakes (called sin),
that's the nature of mankind. We can forgive him as well. Forgiveness and
confession don't remove consequences. The Bible is full of stories like that.
Psalm 51 (or 55, I don't have mine in front of me, and don't want to put the
CD-Rom in, I have music playing) talks about David and Bathsheba. What he did
there was wrong, he begged for forgiveness in front of God, and he still had
consequences for his actions, even though he was forgiven. The baby died.
> Myself, I would NOT have testified honestly. When asked, I would have
> said: "I'm not answering this question because I don't grant your basis
> to ask it, and I am prepared to take the contempt charge, which I will
> appeal." But that takes courage to do, and he doesn't have any.
You shouldn't lie under oath, it brings additonal consequences. Especially if
you're the 42nd president of the United States. But your reply is good, you
didn't say anything that wasn't true in the above statement.
> See the distinction? This impeachment isn't about sex, it's about
> behaviour to avoid having an unjust law apply to you. He's a coward, he
> tries to wiggle out of stuff he doesn't agree with instead of taking a
> stand.
I agree there. But is sexual harrasment (the act, not the law) right? No.
> > > 3 - >>>>>> -Lar <Darwin>< :-)
> >
> > That's another thing that's hard for me to stomach. There's a debate, but • it
> > should be kept to email. :)
>
> What?? you find it hard to stomach that someone rejects the creationist
> rejection of causality? Tell me more. Or was that not what you meant?
I didn't mean that. I won't preach here, but I could start to. I am sickened
by the evolutionists' sacriligious (spelling? probably not) disrespectful
mockery of a symbol that represents the Christian faith. The symbol of the
fish is not 'sacred,' but this is sickening. What we use to represent our
Lord and Savior others have torn apart in disrespect and mockery to represent
their lack of faith. That's what I meant by this statement. Ok, I'll stop
now.
I didn't quite get what you meant by 'creationist rejection of casualty.' I'm
only 16, so I haven't had all those college classes yet...
And anyways, your fish is backwards ;) Christiah bookstores have fish and
bumper stickers where a fish that says TRUTH on it is gobbling up the much
smaller Darwin fish :)
> 1 - Sexual harrassement is a BAD THING, and we should have something in
> place that helps people defend against abuse of power by government
> officials. However, I suspect (2) that if we looked carefully at the
> common-law body we had in place in 1900, we could find what we need
> instead of using this horribly flawed law we have now.
Ok, I see what you're saying. There are a few times this law has gotten OUT
OF HAND. Take for example the infamous Sienfeld lawsuit about that guy at
work who talked about a sitcom episode that occurred the night before. He
mentioned a female body part and she flipped out and filed for sexual
harassment. People are so edgy these days, and not only in this subject!
Free prozac to everyone! So many people get so ticked off at the littlest
things...
-Tim <><
http://www.zacktron.com - Coming Soon!
http://trc.osiriscomm.com
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton )
|
| (...) I'm not sure that it's possible to write this and assure that it won't be taken the wrong way, and maybe since I'm responding to something a month old, I should just let it go, but as you've already guessed, I'm not going to. (I'm going to (...) (25 years ago, 21-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this
|
| (...) Didn't say he didn't. But you missed the point too. Clinton (slimeball that he is) decided to hide his behaviour because if he hadn't he would have lost the Jones lawsuit. I have no doubt he harassed her, none whatever. My point, and I'll (...) (26 years ago, 20-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
118 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
