<p>FF, the sexual harassment isn’t the issue. The issues are:</p>
<p>1.Clinton was hounded by a bunch of partisan idiots.</p>
<p>2.Nobody has challenged the administration in place the past
eight years for crimes so horrendous it would take me
hours to cite them.</p>
<p>Actually, if you folks could stop your food fight for a minute you could pick up on the actual story here: the right wing propaganda machine which has spread an incredible amount of half-truths, lies and other smears for thirty years is funded by guys who are just out to protect their own extreme wealth. Smearing a politician because he does the same thing sexually that I do? Fine - as long as it protects my inherited wealth. Hypocrisy is not an issue for the extremely wealthy. Money has no moral qualms.</p>
<p>
It would help if every time the right wing faithful regurgitate the latest propaganda from their mentors - whether it be repeating the latest sleaze bomb about Clinton’s sex life, Kerry’s war service, Gore’s initiatives in congress, “skepticism” about global warming, HRC’s accent, Obama’s religion, etc. – they faced the fact that they were simply being towel boys for folks like Dick Scaife, and for only one purpose: to make sure that he and those like him stay richer than you – forever. That’s all that it’s ever been about. The only ideology involved here is money.</p>
<p>
Actually Kluge, you are thowing the most food. I am trying to keep on a diet.</p>
<p>"FF, the sexual harassment isn’t the issue. "</p>
<p>Like I said, if Paula Jones were your friend and Bill Clinton were just an anonymous boss (or, horror of horrors, a Republican), I suspect that your viewpoint would be completely different. Then every feminist would be out to get the “misogynist pig”. If he were a Republican, they would have been after him after he left office and demanded that he be tried in criminal court for perjury.</p>
<p>FF, my understanding of the interactions between Paula Jones and Clinton are different than yours. I have nothing against Republicans who don’t break the law, either.</p>
<p>However, Kluge’s #22 response above was much more elegantly and accurately stated then anything I could invent, so please refer to that. Attorneys do come in handy quite frequently.</p>
<p>“FF, my understanding of the interactions between Paula Jones and Clinton are different than yours.”</p>
<p>It’s not a question of recollection. The woman filed suit and was entitled to truthful discovery, as is every litigant in America.</p>
<p>“It’s not a question of recollection. The woman filed suit and was entitled to truthful discovery, as is every litigant in America.”</p>
<p>You and FF took this thread off on a tangent, that I attempted to redirect, by deferring to # 22. The money issue involved contributed greatly to this article. </p>
<p>I was NOT talking about sexual harassment, PERIOD. FF turned my words into something I didn’t say, and I think you are attempting the same thing. Even without the ideas added in post #22, sexual harassment was nothing I was discussing.</p>
<p>Violinists, your words were quoted accurately by me. This is a message board, things evolve. Your post #19 made a statement that was either ambiguous or untrue and it was responded to. If you aren’t being misquoted or slandered, then you have no right to complain. My post and FF’s were within the terms of service so get over yourself. If your need for control is this great, perhaps you are in the wrong place.</p>
<p>My post 19 was not ambiguous or untrue. Nobody was complaining. I was defining your behavior and response. I would call it a difference of interpretation, a discussion, a conversation, an explanation, etc. AND I REFERRED YOU AND FF TO #22, as that answered both your attempts to quibble with me. (I have Kluge on retainer.)</p>
<p>Definition of control (verb)
forms: controlled; controlled; controlling
to exercise a directing, restraining or governing influence over.</p>
<p>I am glad you are within the TOS. Good!</p>
<p>You don’t get to have Kluge or anyone else on retainer. You typed words. They are there for all to see, you don’t now get to disclaim them.</p>
<p>Therefore, I shall type them again. Please read. Thank you.</p>
<p>Do You People Dream About Clinton And His Sex Life?</p>
<p>“It’s not a question of recollection. The woman filed suit and was entitled to truthful discovery, as is every litigant in America.”</p>
<p>You and FF took this thread off on a tangent, that I attempted to redirect, by deferring to # 22. The money issue involved contributed greatly to this article.</p>
<p>I was NOT talking about sexual harassment, PERIOD. FF turned my words into something I didn’t say, and I think you are attempting the same thing. Even without the ideas added in post #22, sexual harassment was nothing I was discussing.</p>
<p>No tangent. The OP referenced the harassment. You certainly were talking about harassment. Don’t you read your own posts?</p>
<p>My, this is a food fight.
I can’t believe that someone would comment on repubs supposed infatuation with Clinton’s sex life, after opening an entire thread about a republican’s sex life. Who is infatuated with whose sex life? I’m so confused.</p>
<p>Me too Doubleplay. Tommybill opened the thread, not me.</p>
<p>I have infatuations about my sex life. After my husband, it is Steven Colbert.</p>
<p>Doubleplay, you’re successfully missing the point. Fueling an obsession with Clinton’s sex life serves the goal of ensuring that Dick Scaife will always be richer than you are. Noting that Dick Scaife - who was one of the rich guys who bankrolled the frivolous litigation designed to focus America’s attention on Clinton’s sex life - is basically the same guy as Clinton (when it comes to sex, anyway) might just help to open the eyes of the fish who follow every shiny object dangled in front of them by the right wing propagandists to make sure that they never pay attention to the bottom line long enough to realize that they’re being used.</p>
<p>Yes, you are confused.</p>