|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 68 responses total. |
jaklumen
|
|
response 25 of 68:
| 
Apr 28 11:38 UTC 2002 |
Again, this is so old. Sooo old.
<lumen is wishing McCain would have toned down his rhetoric; maybe he
would have had a better shot at having been the Republican nomination>
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 26 of 68:
|
Apr 28 11:40 UTC 2002 |
and maybe I'm still annoyed because Clinton was never removed from
office? What an unprofessional cad. Trust me, if he was in just
about any other private (i.e., not government) profession, he'd be
gone.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 27 of 68:
|
Apr 28 14:04 UTC 2002 |
That's true. The difference is that he was *elected*, which makes things a
bit different, because removing him is undoing the will of the majority of
voters.
|
other
|
|
response 28 of 68:
|
Apr 28 14:16 UTC 2002 |
You're forgetting, too, that the process was undertaken by which properly
elected presidents ARE removed, and the process WORKED. He wasn't
removed because the people did not sufficiently support that outcome.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 29 of 68:
|
Apr 28 15:04 UTC 2002 |
That too.
|
jp2
|
|
response 30 of 68:
|
Apr 28 16:49 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 31 of 68:
|
Apr 28 21:21 UTC 2002 |
Re #26: If we're talking private corporations, George W. Bush would never
have gotten such a high position either. His poor speaking skills alone
would have kept him out of upper management.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 32 of 68:
|
Apr 28 23:31 UTC 2002 |
Re #30: Not really.
|
dbunker
|
|
response 33 of 68:
|
Apr 29 02:28 UTC 2002 |
Re #25 : "So old" huh? Are you really that clueless? Will 9/11 be "old
news"next year? How about Enron? I can't wait to see how your teenager
responds when you try to remind him of something that happened a couple of
years before. "Don't bug me about my DUI, Dad, that's OLD NEWS!" And what
the hell does Clinton have to do with the election fiasco?!?
Comments like yours provide support for arguments that only people capable
of critical thought should be allowed to vote.
|
senna
|
|
response 34 of 68:
|
Apr 29 04:55 UTC 2002 |
Comments like #33 provide support for arguments that there is a very powerful
elitist movement in the country that would prefer cutting out the little guy
to doing anything for them. ;)
|
gull
|
|
response 35 of 68:
|
Apr 29 12:47 UTC 2002 |
Re #33: Enron's already old news. When was the last time you saw it
mentioned outside of the Business page of the paper? People have short
attention spans for complicated issues.
|
senna
|
|
response 36 of 68:
|
Apr 29 22:18 UTC 2002 |
Just look at the OJ jury. :) I think people let the Clinton trial drop a lot
more than angry democrats think, too. The rumored Gore rant blaming Clinton's
scandal for the lost election doesn't seem accurate to me, for more reasons
than one.
The last sentence of #35 pretty accurately explains why entertainment and news
media is so shallow these days.
|
dbunker
|
|
response 37 of 68:
|
Apr 30 02:27 UTC 2002 |
Re #34: While I don't deny the existence of an elitest movement, nothing I
said in #33 indicates I support it. It is because I oppose such movements
that I find stupid comments like lumen's to be so disturbing, since the
provide ammo for the very movement I oppose. I agree with you about #35,
though.
Re #35: FWIW, Enron still gets passing mention in front page articles
discussing pension and accounting reform, which I guess isn't saying much.
And as far as your last sentence goes, I guess it brings us back to why I
found lumen's comment so annoying.
|
jazz
|
|
response 38 of 68:
|
May 1 19:24 UTC 2002 |
I'm not sure what you're talking about. A successful executive that
has an affair wouldn't be removed from office; I don't think the business
community would bat an eyelash.
|
senna
|
|
response 39 of 68:
|
May 2 00:40 UTC 2002 |
What do you mean, "wouldn't be?" Try "hasn't been." We know this happens.
|
aruba
|
|
response 40 of 68:
|
May 2 02:00 UTC 2002 |
No business executive would have his personal life examined as closely as
President Clinton's was.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 41 of 68:
|
May 2 10:25 UTC 2002 |
resp:37 okay, whatever, dude. I am so tired of trying to have a
political view of my own. I am so tired of my conservative friends
tell me I am wrong. I am so tired of my liberal friends telling me I
am wrong. Fine, I retract my statement.
But FUCK YOU anyway.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 42 of 68:
|
May 2 11:07 UTC 2002 |
it's late, I'm tired, and I was too lazy to look at the context again
to figure out what the hell you were talking about.
I am letting it go now.. and I'm also promptly forgetting this item,
too.
|
oval
|
|
response 43 of 68:
|
May 2 18:56 UTC 2002 |
umm ..
|
bru
|
|
response 44 of 68:
|
May 3 02:29 UTC 2002 |
Any executive that had been found using an "Intern" would get hung. An
affair isn't the point, and affair with anintern is the point.
|
gull
|
|
response 45 of 68:
|
May 3 03:25 UTC 2002 |
No, he'd settle out of court and pay a small fraction of his
multi-million-dollar salary to her.
|
aruba
|
|
response 46 of 68:
|
May 3 16:10 UTC 2002 |
Re #44: I kind of object to the word "using" - I assume it's short for
"using for sex". I don't think that's an appropriate way to describe a
consentual relationship. And I disagree that an executive having an affair
with an intern would necessarily get him fired. In fact, I bet it goes on
all the time without anyone getting fired.
|
bru
|
|
response 47 of 68:
|
May 3 22:03 UTC 2002 |
It may occur, but when they ARE caught, they find themselves looking for
another job.
|
aruba
|
|
response 48 of 68:
|
May 3 22:35 UTC 2002 |
I see what you're saying now - you're trying to relate Clinton's actions to
a case of sexual harrassment, in which a boss-person pressures someone he
has power over into having sex. While a situation like that would,
hopefully, be very damaging to the instigator, that's not at all what
Clinton did.
|
slynne
|
|
response 49 of 68:
|
May 6 19:01 UTC 2002 |
A lot of companies do have policies against what Clinton did but I
doubt anyone would get fired over it. They would probably each be told
that the affair had to end or one of them would have to quit.
|