[Vision2020] Amy's still not "getting it"
Edna Wilmington
edwilming@yahoo.com
Sun, 25 Jan 2004 00:32:35 -0800 (PST)
Forum Members,
I don't really want to talk about this old news
either, but since I'm feeling so self-important
tonight, I can't resist...
Thanks, Mr. Lohrmann. Good points, I'd say, except for
the dichotomy between Clinton's sex life and sexual
harassment involving the hands-on part of his sex
life. That's a tough one to get. Can you run that by
me once more, this time real slowlike. Even Rose
doesn't believe in that kind of firewall, does she?
Anyhow, consider this liberal mindstretcher in order
to illustrate Mr. Lorhrmann's point:
Begin by imagining that we live in a world where the
Monica Lewinsky scandal never happened, and we're now
leading into the next presidential election. Next,
flip your liberal polylogic switch to the ON position.
WASHINTGON, DC (AP) - This Sunday night, 60 Minutes
will run an exclusive expose and breaking story that
George Dubya has been receiving oral sex in the oval
office from an attractive 19-year-old congressional
page. Sources say a Cuban cigar has been implicated
somehow, and a Pentagon staffer has secured a copy of
an audio tape confirming the whole affair.
President Bush's lead political adviser, Karl Rove,
has defended the president saying, "At least he
insisted on keeping his suit jacket on, and besides,
it wasn't like he really had sex." White House
sources say the President plans to deny everything,
even if they put him under oath before a federal grand
jury.
Reaction from major national women's rights groups has
been subdued. Former President of NOW, Patricia
Ireland, said this to Morley Safer, "This isn't
important to us. Who cares about the president's sex
life? That's a private matter, and we just don't think
it has any connection to the political issues we care
about or the president's job performance."
On the other hand, Heide Fider, a representative of
GuerrillaGirls.com, has been quoted as saying, "We
knew he was up to something that would undermine
women's rights, but we're still not sure what."
Pat Robertson, founder and President of the Christian
Coalition, was also interviewed by Mr. Safer in early
January. In that interview, Robertson is quoted as
saying, "Now, well... we know the president's a man of
God. We're just certain he must have some good reason
for this... this youthful indiscretion."
Would this move anyone to expend any feminist energy?
Mum's the word.
Edna Wilmington
--- Tim Lohrmann <timlohr@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Amy,
> It wasn't about his sex life. It was about
> sexual harassment.
> What is it about 1. a state's chief executive
> exposing himself to a low-level underling over which
> he could indirectly have firing authority; 2. having
> sex with women under him in the White House; 3.
> groping women who work for him. etc. that you don't
> call sexual harassment.
> And THEN for feminists and the feminist minded
> not to speak out against him just because he
> happened to have a D by his name? It's
> mind-boggling.
> If he hadn't been a political ally of the major
> feminist groups they would have been first in line
> on the impeachment bandwagon for his perjury and you
> know it.
> At least the ARK Bar had the guts to disbar him
> for his crime.
>
> And again, no one that I saw has defended W for
> his actions at all.
> Best, TL
> amy smoucha <asmoucha@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Tim, though I'm sure this is a tired thread by now,
> I have to jump in.
> Feminist-minded Democrats condemned Clinton, but not
> because of his sexual
> behavior or his womanizing. Clinted deserved
> criticism from women because
> he signed a welfare reform bill that punished women
> and children, forced
> them to work for low wages (often less than minimum
> wage as in New York's
> workfare programs), all without adequate funding for
> childcare, education
> and healthcare. Feminists were also outraged because
> he signed DOMA.
> Clinton and Gore did enough to piss off the women
> who voted for them, but we
> care about more important issues than a president's
> sex life or whether he
> calls someone Babe.
>
> As for lying--it is despicable that he lied, but the
> national discussion of
> his sex life was such an affront--another kind of
> cheating, and you know it.
> Politicians throughout this nation's history have
> been womanizers, have
> cheated with their interns. They drink, smoke and
> have a lot of sex. The
> right-wing attack on Bill Clinton was a
> paparazzo-like attempt to make
> national politics more like the Jerry Springer show.
> And they spent
> millions of tax-payer dollars to create the
> spectacle.
>
> If a leader should impeached for lying, we better
> start the process for Bush
> right now--he's told serious lies that have killed
> thousands of people. He
> lied about WMDs in Iraq, about Hussain trying to buy
> uranium from Africa,
> about our economy improving and about jobs being
> created during his
> administration, about the No Child Left Behind Act
> working.
>
> The Guerilla Girls have a great new poster showing
> that Bush is one of the
> worst threats to our national security
>
http://www.guerrillagirls.com/posters/womensterroralert.shtml
> . I hope
> this time next year we are inaugurating another
> flawed Democrat to replace
> this scary Republican. I want to send Bush and
> Cheney life-sized pink slips
> on behalf of the thousands of workers who have lost
> jobs since they've been
> in office. I'd also like to draft them and stick
> them in Baghdad. I can
> dream, can't I?
>
> Amy Smoucha
>
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: Tim Lohrmann
> To: Aldoussoma@aol.com
> CC: vision2020@moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Separate V2020 Lists?
> Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 09:42:19 -0800 (PST)
>
> Ted,
> I don't get it. I think it's ridiculuous for
> supposedly feminist minded
> Democrats to defend Clinton's actions--so because of
> that I'm supposed to
> defend Bush?
> Why?
> Are your political views so simplistic that a person
> who doesn't
> approve of a Democrat party president's actions must
> automatically be
> enamored of any GOP'er president?
> Or were you just upset that no one responded to your
> post?
> By the way, your argument about "cause a scholar
> said so" is
> ridiculous.
> Just like courtroom "experts," you can find numerous
> scholars on almost
> any side of any issue.
> Best, TL
>
> Aldoussoma@aol.com wrote:
>
> Carl, Tim, et. al.
>
> I posted to V2020 that Bush telling the nation lies
> to scare us into a war
> was worse than Clinton's lies about his sex life,
> yet not a peep out of Tim
> or just about anyone else that I recall on V2020.
>
> Tim, I'd gladly accept replacing some of the
> "Wilson/CC" subject headed
> posts with "Bush Lied" subject headed posts. But I
> think this focus on a
> religious group that seeks to expand and gain
> influence over the community
> is worth the attention it is getting.
>
> Ted
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool.
> Try it!
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
> Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, from
> McAfee.
>
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool.
> Try it!
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/