If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Monica Lewinsky may be writing a tell-all book, reportedly has loads of stories, can give you a mouthful   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 57
    More: Interesting, Monica Lewinsky, White House intern, Guatemalan, u.s. secretary of state, publishing, New York Post  
•       •       •

1789 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 14 Sep 2012 at 7:44 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



57 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-14 09:32:15 PM
Lwesinky: Do you like the blue dress? Clinton: Like it? I have loved it from the from the first time I spotted it!!

Dadhep
 
2012-09-14 10:57:24 PM
www.demotivatingposters.com
 
2012-09-15 12:17:07 AM

ko_kyi: therecksays: Dude. Where in any reality has Monica EVER said she was coerced in ANY way?

She surely wasn't, nor do I care any more than any case where a leader diddles a subordinate. It is unprofessional and unethical. A few years prior to the scandal there was a harassment scandal involving Bob Packwood, and the talking head shows were full of outraged feminists saying that any sex when there is a power disparity is a form of rape. Then they were oddly silent about Lewinsky.

Back away from the rape comments.

Learn to read before you start ordering people what to do.


Ok I can read just fine and also can understand nuance too. In the Packwood case the subordinants were the subject of unwelcomed sexual advances. In the Lewinsky case she was in to it. See the difference? Understand why that might not be a rape case? Do you understand what rape means? Fark why do I have to explain these things?
 
2012-09-15 01:16:55 AM

therecksays: ko_kyi: therecksays: Dude. Where in any reality has Monica EVER said she was coerced in ANY way?

She surely wasn't, nor do I care any more than any case where a leader diddles a subordinate. It is unprofessional and unethical. A few years prior to the scandal there was a harassment scandal involving Bob Packwood, and the talking head shows were full of outraged feminists saying that any sex when there is a power disparity is a form of rape. Then they were oddly silent about Lewinsky.

Back away from the rape comments.

Learn to read before you start ordering people what to do.

Ok I can read just fine and also can understand nuance too. In the Packwood case the subordinants were the subject of unwelcomed sexual advances. In the Lewinsky case she was in to it. See the difference? Understand why that might not be a rape case? Do you understand what rape means? Fark why do I have to explain these things?


The point being made was that in previous cases the various women's groups came out against the powerful male for taking advantage of the young female subordinate but in this case because it was Clinton and he was supportive of their agenda they turned a blind eye or worse, blamed ML for the whole thing. It wasn't literally rape, but in previous instances the same type of situation was described as a type of rape similar to a teacher-student relationship where the person in power takes advantage of the dominant role they are in.
 
2012-09-15 04:55:15 AM
It will probably be redacted down by the Feds to a couple of words - in the interest of National Security of course.
 
2012-09-15 09:55:11 AM

dmac1964: therecksays: ko_kyi: therecksays: Dude. Where in any reality has Monica EVER said she was coerced in ANY way?

She surely wasn't, nor do I care any more than any case where a leader diddles a subordinate. It is unprofessional and unethical. A few years prior to the scandal there was a harassment scandal involving Bob Packwood, and the talking head shows were full of outraged feminists saying that any sex when there is a power disparity is a form of rape. Then they were oddly silent about Lewinsky.

Back away from the rape comments.

Learn to read before you start ordering people what to do.

Ok I can read just fine and also can understand nuance too. In the Packwood case the subordinants were the subject of unwelcomed sexual advances. In the Lewinsky case she was in to it. See the difference? Understand why that might not be a rape case? Do you understand what rape means? Fark why do I have to explain these things?

The point being made was that in previous cases the various women's groups came out against the powerful male for taking advantage of the young female subordinate but in this case because it was Clinton and he was supportive of their agenda they turned a blind eye or worse, blamed ML for the whole thing. It wasn't literally rape, but in previous instances the same type of situation was described as a type of rape similar to a teacher-student relationship where the person in power takes advantage of the dominant role they are in.


No look I get where the cases may look similar because there is an employer subordinate relationship. However in the Packwood case there were 10 women that acused him of harassment and sexual assault. In the Clinton case there was one woman that accused him of nothing. So what are women's groups going to protest? That a woman had an affair with a married man?
 
2012-09-15 12:25:35 PM
Dang Monica's lookin' good. If she's good enough for the prez....
 
Displayed 7 of 57 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report