Hillary's disservice to women

yes,the word from the underground is that Hillary likes women.
Or chicks.Or whatever.More so than Slick.She's just slicker than
Willy is all.

 

We should always have moral leadership. With out morals there is no base to work from.

 

Ahhh this went FAR beyond mere "sexual morality: didn't it. Clinton's sleazy behavior involved sexual harassment in the workplace, sexual assault of women over whom he had power, creating a hostile workplace, abuse of power and on and on. Hillary was either a willing enabler and participant in the cover ups and intimidation's of the women her husband assaulted and harassed or was serially made the fool of by her husband, IN PUBLIC.

You tell me which is the better scenario and why we should respect her for either? And where does she get the GAUL to say she stands for protecting women against sexual assault and harassment and women who face such things should look to her for protection.

 

So Bill MAY have been actually telling the truth when he said that 'he did not have sex with that woman....'. Could he be covering for Hillary?

 

`
I'll let you worry about the sexual morality of candidates, like I said, I'm looking for a leader who is relatively effective and proficient at their job. I'm not concerned about their sexual habits.

 

The term "clown car" is so yesterday. If I were a minority, I would see the Dems as people who only cared about my vote for them. I would think that they don't see me as an equal, but rather as someone to be "kept." That they don't care if I get an education and am able to live a productive life, but rather as an inferior who has to be taken care of in perpetuity,for a price, of course. Welfare was meant to be TEMPORARY, not a lifelong enabler. Instead of importing all these immigrants, give the people on welfare a job, so that they can feel good about themselves.

 

So you are not concerned with male bosses who sexually assault and harass their subordinate employees? And a prospective President who enabled and defended her sexually abusing and sexually harassing husband and help in the intimidation of those women so they would not go public?

WOW for someone I would expect to stand up for women in the workplace and want male bosses who so abusive their employees to be held accountable that is amazing you would just throw all that out the window. I would think you would want to go after other women who support these sleazebags especially if they are willing participants in the attempts to cover it up.

And again

Hillary was either a willing enabler and participant in the cover ups and intimidation's of the women her husband assaulted and harassed or was serially made the fool of by her husband, IN PUBLIC.You tell me which is the better scenario and why we should respect her for either?

 

If they are as smart as you claim, they wouldn't vote for either. Anyone who votes for either of them, intentionally, lacks intelligence.

 

Oh? so no obligation to fight to preserve her family? Funny how its two guys talking about a woman's motivations and decision making.
It almost seems as tho some people think guys and gals think the same way about the same things.

As to Hillary's statement about believing the victims of sexual attacks, I happen to agree with many who think that is utter nonsense.
Of course, the media does really good job deciding who to believe by which storyline will boost viewership the most.
The court of public opinion is usually both unanswerable and ill informed of all the facts.

 

She would have lost all her connections and power? What a marvelously chauvinistic perspective. She was only elected senator because of her husband. She was only appointed Sec State because of her husband. she is only running for president because of her husband. Yep she is totally incompetent without her own brain and requires Bill to keep his arm shoved up her arse so she can function in his world.

are you married? You think trying to maintain a broken marriage is the easy way out? That must be why the divorce rate for all marriages in America is estimated at some 40 to 50%, A lot of hard braving bailing going on there, ain't it?

 

Except she did not act out of falsehood.

- - - Updated - - -

They didn't make it your business.

I have the fact that the only thing in existence on this matter are allegations. What have you got that betters that?

 

No of course not, not when he husband is serially and repeatedly violating the marriage vows, why do you think different? And ESPECIALLY when he is sexually assaulting and sexually harassing other women, why do you think different?

Since when is that banned and what difference does the sex of the parties and their respective roles make. Were it Hillary engaging in the sleazy unlawful behavior I would expect Bill to have sent her packing.

Why?

 

She is a pro women candidate. That certainly is a woman's candidate.

- - - Updated - - -

You haven't backed anything up. Your anecdotal testimony of personal experience is not backing up.

Get a grip.

 

She was part and party into trying to create the falsehood to cover up her husbands sleazy behaviors.

Oh yes they most certainly did when it first involved government workers over whom he was their superior, and it was when they choose to go on national TV not only falsely denying it in order to get Bill elected to be OUR President, but when they promised to all of US that it was over and he would never again engage in the acts they just denied and then label many of us as a "vast right wing conspiracy" They asked for OUR trust in THEIR marriage so it was most certainly made our business by them themselves. They in fact challenged us to make it our business much like Gary Hart did with his sexual misbehavior's.

I have the fact that the only thing in existence on this matter are allegations. What have you got that betters that?[/QUOTE]

 

[/QUOTE]

No she was not.

None of that makes it your business. Government workers have a right to privacy too. And they had no obligation to tell you anything true or untrue about their private lives.

 

Yes she was, and when it involved OUR government workers it involved US. When it involved THEY coming to US in their national "trust us" interview and claiming it was just a "great right wing conspiracy" THEY made it OUR business. When it became criminal assaults and federal lawsuits it became OUR business. And her asking to be place in the position of the highest public trust along with her sleaze bag husband makes it OUR business.

Tell me why YOU would support putting a couple with such a history of abusing subordinate female workers an other women over whom they had power back into the White House

 

She was jealous Bill got the girls that Hillary wanted.

 

Lol...Is that the word from gutter, eh?
I imagine that the country will have to endure 8 years of this sort of misogynist prattle from the right starting in 2016.

 

So all that "under god" nonsense and holy matrimony are qualified vows? who'd a thunk, especially since marriage is such a sacred institution, until its not.

I notice lots of criminal charges of sexual assault and harassment against Bill. Oh wait of course, no charges or court cases required, he's guilty and that's that.

What difference does the sex of the parties and their respective roles make?
And here I thought that there is a material difference in male and female attitudes and their respective roles in any relationship.

Innocent until proven guilty for one.
Unsubstantiated accusations, while effective with some crowds, do nothing to advance justice.

there's actually quite a long list of why one should not simply accept accusations made against somebody, particularly under certain circumstances. But you knew that.

 

No she didn't do any of that. Mere allegations.

And no abuse occurred.

I would support them because none of the allegations are proven. Just as I don't support any allegations against anyone that's unproven. Even gwb. Or the gipper.

 

LOL.

Seriously though, even before whatever book came out in the last couple years, I heard a remarkably consistent string of second and third hand stories from different people who knew different people that worked in the Clinton WH. That story of her almost hitting him in the head with a lamp she threw after learning the Monica story was true has been one of them. TBH, I might would like her if she were more passionate like that in her public dealings.

 

So it is your position that even if the male spouse is a serial rapist divorce should not be allowed and in particular the female spouse should not seek one. In fact we should get rid of divorce altogether even annulments? Other than the Catholic church which even it has liberalize such matters what religious institution holds this view?

I have sworn statements in a court of law, what do you have? I have his $900,000 settlement and apology to Paula Jones, what do you have?

ME>> What difference does the sex of the parties and their respective roles make?

So you think it's OK for men to violate the marriage and that women think that but it's not OK for women and women thing that. How sexist, misogynist and bigoted of you.

On a court of law, not in the court of public opinion but then we do have the sworn depositions that were entered into a court of law. What do you have to refute them?

Sworn statements with corroborations. What do you have to refute them?

According to Hillary they are to be believed until evidence is presented otherwise. Present this evidence otherwise.

 

YES, her last name was a HUGE factor and she was just another lawyer without Bill. Its the easy way out when you know your political future is OVER without him. If her goal was politics, he would've destroyed her in a divorce. Bill would put everyone against her. And yes, I'm married and don't have any plans to cheat on my wife...EVER.

 

Right. I guess you are somebody that believes that without a man, a woman can't succeed. Okay then.

 

No. That is not my position. Of course you are claiming something that is not - Clinton isn't a serial rapist. Unless of course the court of partisan public opinion is more than enough to condemn a person, regardless of the constitution. That's some kinda conservative perspective ya got there.

What sworn statements? What part of SETTLEMENT do you not understand? Btw there was NO apology.

You mean like in same sex marriage?

Strawmen seem to be your bread and butter.

You have accusations and a settlement. You don't have a conviction. Oh by the way was that criminal court adjudicating his guilt or innocence under criminal law? Oh no, it was a civil case. Those never end up in a "settlement", with no admission of "guilt" do they?

Broken record.

Yes we both agree that was a stupid statement for her to make.