"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...
Doesn't matter. When a person in an ultimate power position makes or
accepts advances from a bottom dweller, it's harassment. Check out some
of the court's decisions on such cases. If Monica had filed sexual
harassment charges against him, he'd likely have been convicted. My
guess is that she was paid off to forget the whole thing.

You're just plain wrong:
Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal
or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when
submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly
affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an
individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or
offensive work environment.

Such definitions are irrelevant in light of redundant court decisions.
You can quote them all you like, but they mean nothing. Law is more a
matter of legal precedent than definitions written in some book. At least
two other people have told you this as well, but you refuse to acknowledge
the truth of the matter. That, however, is nothing new.

So, please show us the "precedence" of these redundant court decisions. The
passage I quoted is what is used as a guideline for businesses. Are you
saying that they're not valid? How did you come to that conclusion. Should
we alert the media? Basically, what you're saying is that it's not ok for
two consenting adults who happen to work with each other to have an affair.
And, further, you're saying that this should be investigated and prosecuted
for lying about it. Is that what you're really saying??? Seems kind of like
a lot of gov't intrusion into someone's private life to me. But, you're the
conservative not me.

He was also found not guilty by the Senate.

No, he wasn't. He was impeached, but the Senate refused to remove him
from office. That was probably a good decision for the welfare of the
country. But it's rather like the decision in the O.J. Simpson case--he
was acquitted, but that is a far cry from stating that he is innocent.
He's not, nor was Clinton. A president who lies for political purposes is
a liability to the country and a denegration to the office of the
President. Show me some evidence that Bush lied about WMDs and I'll be the
first to call for his impeachment.

I already did, but you refuse to acknowledge it.

In any case, you're understanding of the impeachment process is flawed:

During Clinton's presidency, the world continued to transition from the
political order of the Cold War, and the United States experienced the
longest period of economic expansion in its history. In 1998, he became the
second president to be impeached by the United States House of
Representatives. He was subsequently acquitted by the United States Senate
and remained in office to complete his term.

Read up before you type further:

http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/e-go...tonimpeach.htm

Show me one piece of evidence that Bush lied about WMDs prior to the
Iraq war? Hint: you can't, because he didn't. He was misinformed by
the intel community. And no doubt he was happy to have a reason to
invade Iraq, but he expected to find WMDs in Iraq and was just as
puzzled as the rest of us why none were uncovered.

Responding to bad intel is not lying, no matter how you spin it. It may
have been stupidity, but not deception.


I'm not a prosecuter nor a judge. There's plenty of evidence out there,
and it should be vetted in court. Are you afraid of that?

Not in the least. I'm under the impression that Bush has handled the Iraq
situation with incompetence and stubborn ignorance. But I've seen no
evidence that he deliberately falsified information in order to further
his agenda. Show me that, and I'll call for his ouster.

How am *I* supposed to show you that? I'm calling for an investigation.

Are you claiming Bush has never lied?

Every human being lies. Even you, difficult as that may be to accept.
g But as to the WMDs, I don't believe he lied. He knew well that if the
WMDs weren't found, his ratings would be in the basement. He took the
risk,

He knew that based on the intelligence or he should have known. For a guy
with an MBA, he sure didn't check to carefully or have his minions check.

You don't believe. Well, that's an opinion and we need a full investigation.
What if he DID lie? Do you really want someone who lies and 1000s die to
remain in office?

believing WMDs were a good sell to the American public for the elimination
of Saddam Hussein. And I believe he had ulterior motives for taking
Saddam down. But I don't believe he *knew* there were no WMDs. IF he is
impeached for lying about WMDs, the case will never fly. There is simply
no evidence that he deliberately falsified such info. There IS a
preponderance of evidence that he was given faulty intel. THAT is
probably why Pelosi took impeachment off the table--she's a good attorney
and knows a non-case when she sees it.




--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com