That reminds me of the guy who told me recently that when he and his friends *conjugate *there’s usually alcohol involved.
Monica worked for Clinton. Therefore, by definition, any sex between them is sexual harassment…TRM
Nope. There was no coercion or quid pro quo. She never alleged harrassment. She was actually the aggressor.
Well, I guess we’ll just ignore the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, then. The only reason theirs wasn’t the last word (at least barring another round of appeals) is because the case was settled.
Besides, are you contending that because someone claims a legal standard wasn’t met, it didn’t happen? That seems a bit out of character for you.
Well, it would be if she actually worked for Clinton but she didn’t.
She worked as an assistant to the Pentagon’s spokesman…or something like that.
They said it was settled, not that Clinton had harrassed anybody.
It’s not a question of what did or didn’t happen. The judge said that even if it DID happen, it wasn’t harrassment. If an action doesn’t meet the legal definition of harrassment, then it isn’t harrassment.What other standard are you going to use? If nothing PJ accused Clinton of doing was enough to constitute harrassment (and the court said it wasn’t), then are you alleging that he did MORE than he was accused of?
To simplify – what can you prove that Bill Clinton did that met a legal definition of sexual harrassment?
Ah. Then you shouldn’t have said:
but rather:
Let’s play with the correct goalposts, at least.
If it created a hostile environment for other workers, which it did after the story broke, then it could be sexual harassment. It broke George Stephanoplous’ tiny heart.
But as far as the OP question goes, I’ve always suspected that Rush Limbaugh laughs all the way to the bank. And I was unaware of the Hannity to Olbermann quote.
There is no difference between those two statements. There is no difference between “cite” and “prove.” They are the same statement. So, leaving the goal post exactly where it started, cite that Bill Clinton sexually harrassed anybody?
Okay, I’ll remember that for the next thread about Scalia. A judge says something didn’t happen, therefore it didn’t happen.
You misunderstand. You are the one who has the burden of proof. I used Judge Wright’s dismissal of the PJ suit only to show that the suit could not be held up as proof that harrassment DID happen. Can you provide a cite for Clinton sexually harrassing anybody or can’t you? I don’t have to prove it didn’t happen. You have to prove it did.
ETA, Wright didn’t say that Clinton didn’t do anything he was accused of, she said nothing he was accused of met the legal definition of harrassment. Do you understand that yet? If it is not the job of the courts to rule on legal definitions, whose job is it?
No, I understand perfectly. You just neglected to add a minor qualifier to your original statement. I’ve seen you make any number of bold declarative statements in these threads, often missing necessary qualifiers. I figured this particular one warranted a challenge. Since you’ve now added the necessary qualifiers, I figure I made my point, trivial though it was.
What do you imagine that I’m qualifying? I haven’t even made a positive assertion, much less qualified one.
Can you provide a cite that Clinton harrassed anybody or can’t you?
How the hell did this turn into a forum about Bill Clinton?
To get back to the original question, I sat next to Ann Coulter on a flight from Chicago to Denver a few years ago (I got put in first class). We didn’t talk politics, and she seemed to be a fairly normal person, but when a few people came up to her to shake her hand, she immediately went “into character”.
I think she’s a genuine conservative, but I’d guess she only believes 15-20% of the crap she spouts. She’s found a very profitable niche and she isn’t going to let intellectual honesty get in the way of a huge paycheck.
P.S. That woman is skinnnnyyy.
It’s kinda hard to blame her. It’s similar to actors and comedians who are “on” in public. I guess it would undercut her particular image if she were to ever start displaying the fan-weary “I want to be alone” artiste persona.
I saw this segment and, if I remember correctly, Olbermann was not referring to Hannity’s beliefs but to the fact that people think they are feuding in real life. I don’t recall this conversation having anything to do with political beliefs. I tried to quickly find the clip or a transcript but haven’t found one yet.
KO did say right before that, though, that he thought there were people at Fox who would be perfectly willing to switch to shilling for the Dems if the money was right. He then told the Hannity anecdote without explicitly saying that Hannity was one of the guys he thought would do that, but leaving a a pretty unmistakeable implication.
Did the transformation involve her nails growing long & red, extensions of her canine teeth, a wild look of bloodlust in her eyes, and an even more pallid complexion than usual?
It’s a tried and true right wing tactic. Works every time.