Really? The National Enquirer? That sounds more Weekly World News (RIP).
It is. I don’t know if this is the exact story Musicat is talking about, but it’s their style, anyway.
Im not sure that you understand what sexual harassment in the workplace is. Te boss is not allowed to engage in sexual activity/banter with his/her underlings.Especially in the workplace. Even if he is from your political party.
Unless you are pro-abortion. Then you can even lie under oath about it.
Regards,
Shodan
There’s a difference? A difference with a distinction?
That’s certainly the flavor, but the story that sticks in my mind is one from 20 years ago or more, before I understood that “newspapers” could create fictional “news” articles with such impunity, and before The Onion took hold.
I might have kept the clipping and I think I tucked it in a loosely related book. Now I just have to find the book. I have a lot of books, so don’t wait up.
It’s understandable that they were always lumped together, but there really is a difference. Weekly World News made up crazy shit about Bat Boy (and it now exists only online); the Enquirer posts a lot of gossip with the thinnest possible basis in reality and just enough legally-defensible content to avoid losing tons of lawsuits. They occasional reports real scandalous news. They broke the story about John Edwards’ affair and child in 2008.
As long as she doesn’t pick Bat-Boy as her running mate she’ll be OK.
Let’s save the debate of pro/anti abortion for another thread that’s actually about it.
Nope. It’s not an ad hominem. That would only make sense if Clinton were making an argument, and tried to use his sexual dalliances to prove him wrong.
It’s a legitimate argument, as is your rebuttal. But I’d wonder how often that is the case. We need science to come in and see how often such behavior does in fact show bad decision making in general.
The argument sure seems to be holding sway with Anthony Weiner, for example.