33 Replies to “The Tolerant Left”

  2. Anything to distract from Clinton’s High Crime of committing perjury in the Paula Jones deposition.

  3. This is the reason why women’s groups and the press have zero credibility. ZERO

  4. I seem to remember a saying about a broken clock being right a couple times a day. MSNBC showing something like this is the equivalent of an out-of-date calendar being right once every several years. Maybe MSNBC isn’t keen on a Hillary presidency?

  5. Is Mika’s job to look as if she urgently needs to find a toilet? She has looked like that every time I have seen her.

  6. Shawn….a broken clock is right onlt because the a@@holes are to stupid and/or dense to get rid of it and get a new one.That saying is just a lame excuse.

  7. I interpreted the looks about that table more as “oh $hit” looks….guilt…total silence……..

  9. It is all about Bill Clinton!
    His dear wife, who stood by him, now covets the White House. This loyal soldier who could have/should have slapped Bill down on national TV, did what? Nothing! IMO her reaction to this affair makes her culpable for whatever Monica Lewinsky has gone through over the past 18 years. How does Hillary look Chelsea in the face with any moral creditability? She cannot and yet remains the Demo front runner for succession to Obama. Let us not even discuss Obama ethics at this time.

  10. I disagree, CT. Scarborough is right; it really is about the reeking hypocrisy of the feminist movement. They defended Clinton because it was in their political interest to do so, and they threw an innocent to the wolves. Indeed, the feminist movement were the wolves.
    Sasquatch is right; all those folks around that table look guilty, and they have reason to be. It’s one thing to commit a crime; it’s another and far worse thing to claim as the Left did that it was the victim that was guilty.

  11. Given that guilty look on her face (terrible poker face). I would like to know what part of her relationship with her boss is similar to Monica’s. It is hard to defend Monica if it would be seen as hypocritical. Maybe she, & others like her, are jealous of Monica

  12. there is no innocent party to that affair, a 22 yrs old knows what she is doing when giving a blow job. Poor Monika, my life sucks(no kidding), Lewdisnshy brought all this upon her self. Having said that, yes it is about the women who defend/ed sick willy, and also the broader electorate. Morals ain’t a strong quality on the left side.

  13. I think that Scarborough did a pretty good job of describing the hypocrisy of the media and of the public over what has made into the “Lewinski” story.
    That’s refreshing and he should make a regular habit of it. Of course the MSNBC producers only give him the token opportunity to go against the grain on rare occasions.
    I’m guessing there will be a slight upward tic in the ratings charts after this.

  14. That was Rinoriffic! And without a single mention of the hitman Hilldebeast.

  15. she really was the first internet victim , I searched her name once , pre google and it came up with 10000 hits .
    lets say blown way out of proportion .
    im waiting for Justine to admit to a little SSex action myself. like Obumbles has managed to cover up.

  17. Am I the only guy to notice what a strikingly attractive woman Monica is?
    I support her 100% in telling the biddies to F.O. and get a life. Should have done that years a go.

  18. This is an old article during the time of the Clinton era. I think it pretty much explains feminism’s actions to cover up for Clinton.
    Feminism, Clinton, and Harassment
    By Franklin Foer
    Last month, feminist foremother Gloria Steinem took to the New York Times op-ed page to argue that the sexual harassment laws should not protect Paula Jones. Steinem’s position was roundly dismissed as a scholastic contortion of logic, performed to protect her ideological friend Bill Clinton. Conservatives gloated over the feminist’s hypocrisy on sexual harassment, the movement’s sacred cow. No less than the New York Times editorial page accused Steinem of selling out her cause. Did Steinem and the feminists sacrifice their principles to protect Bill Clinton? What are the different feminist schools of thought on sexual harassment? How have they changed post-Clinton?
    Here, in descending order of sternness, are the five major groups (for a refresher on harassment law and its history, click):
    1MacKinnonites. This, the so-called radical feminist position, is trumpeted primarily by academics who take their cues from law professor Catharine MacKinnon, who holds appointments at the law schools of the universities of Michigan and Chicago. MacKinnon argues that sexual harassment laws are a necessary corrective to the oppressive patriarchy of the workplace, and she wants current laws stiffened. For instance, she would prohibit men from having sex with subordinate female co-workers. MacKinnonites believe that the disparities of power in these relationships render them exploitative by definition.
    MacKinnon’s position, however, is hardly fringe. While a grad student at Yale, she formulated the theory behind the current practice of sexual harassment law–that the employment discrimination protections in the 1964 Civil Rights Act could be used to regulate workplace behavior such as dirty jokes and unwelcome advances. MacKinnon argues that many journalists distort her work, by caricaturing her as a neopuritan. To prove her reasonableness, she concedes that Clinton shouldn’t be prosecuted–at least not for sexually harassing Monica Lewinsky. The Lewinsky affair, she believes, has sparked a hysterical backlash against sexual harassment laws.
    2 NOWistas. Mainstream women’s groups wouldn’t go as far as the MacKinnonites and prohibit all sexual contact between superiors and subordinates. But with the Clarence Thomas (1991) and Bob Packwood (1995) controversies, these groups took the stance that female accusers always deserve the presumption of veracity in sexual harassment cases. Women, they claimed, “don’t make these things up.” And feminists have an obligation to counter the prevailing tendency to dismiss accusers as “nutty and slutty.” But, when it came to Paula Jones, only a handful of feminists–e.g., The Nation columnist Katha Pollitt–consistently supported her case with similar arguments. Initially, most women’s groups–notably the National Organization for Women–maintained a calculated silence. Only after months of the press chiding them for their “double standard” did the groups begin to invoke the presumption on behalf of Kathleen Willey.
    Now that it appears the Jones case will do Clinton no harm, feminist groups have become more vocal. NOW President Patricia Ireland worries publicly that the dismissal of the Jones case will deter other women from bringing sexual harassment claims. Jones’ case illustrates how difficult it is for a woman to get her day in court. Ireland and others also worry about a possible tumble down a slippery slope, with men making passes at women now that they have seen Clinton get away with it.
    3 Strict Constructionists. This group, led by Yale Law School Professor Vicki Schultz, argues that harassment law unhealthily obsesses over sex in the workplace. Conservative judges, Schultz argues, have used sexual harassment law as a pretext for preserving “women’s virtue.” And in precedent-setting decisions, judges imply that there is no such thing as harassment if there is no sex involved. This, she argues, has led these judges to discount the types of employment discrimination–unfair promotion practice, workplace taunts, etc.–the law was originally intended to check. Pundits tend to like the Schultz position because it allows them to continue to defend the idea of sexual harassment law while attacking cases like Paula Jones’, which focuses on an alleged sexual act but makes no convincing showing of damage to her career.
    4One Free Passers. In her now-notorious op-ed, Gloria Steinem argued that Clinton should not be penalized for his “boorish” come-ons. Sexual harassment, she claims, was born out of the feminist proposition that with sexual advances, “no means no; yes means yes.” And when Jones and Willey said “no,” Clinton backed off. Steinem and others in her camp, such as Backlash author Susan Faludi, argue there is no inconsistency between their support of Clinton and condemnations of Packwood and Thomas: Unlike Clinton, they argue, Packwood and Thomas interpreted “no” as “yes” and repeated their unwelcome advances (although most of Packwood’s alleged passes were single tries). Steinem’s distinction is one side of a longstanding legal debate over whether a one-time unwelcome advance is enough to create a hostile working environment. The courts divide on whether a one-time deed is sufficient, but many feminist legal thinkers take Steinem’s side.
    5 Libertarian Hedonists. The lib-hed position goes a step beyond the strict constructionist position. Articulated by self-proclaimed iconoclasts such as Camille Paglia and Katie Roiphe, it argues that we’ve become paranoid about sexual harassment, criminalizing consensual office sex and flirtation. Lib-heds note the proliferation of sexual harassment cases referred to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission since Anita Hill testified before the Senate–from nearly 8,000 to over 15,000 per year. While the critique echoes conservative complaints about multiculturalism (harassment law makes women helpless victims), it also incorporates a libertarian strain (government should not pry into consensual sexual relations) and an Epicurean one (we shouldn’t penalize people with active libidos; so long as nobody gets hurt–or helped–who cares?).

  19. Regardless my earlier comments…..what is the big deal about a VIP gettin’ a bj from a groupy…get a grip!
    Dude…..it’s like a decade er two back and this is 2014.

  20. “Any issues with this? Anyone?”
    Lets file this under: Do as I say, not as I do;
    because Democrats, Canadians and Independants will flock to the creep Hillary Clinton in the next election.
    Furthermore; I have felt for the better part of 20 years that Hillary Clinton is a TERRIBLE role model for girls and women everywhere. Why? Because she let her man walk all over her just so she can keep her shiny things. This is exactly the opposite of what I’m teaching my daughters!
    And, she’s no better today, as her rug-licking girlfriend, Mrs.Weiner, is doing the EXACT same thing. Pathetic!(even though she is pretty hot)
    IMO, politics aside, Hillary Clinton is the lowest person walking the planet at this time. Period!
    I am just as angry as the dude in the clip when I think about this.

  22. I would be curious if he would say the same stuff if Obama was in a similar predicament today. And what would be nice to see, is an on-air battle between him and a feminist. The left have to do a better job of being critical of their own kind. I wouldn’t say that those on the right don’t give passes, but we do a much better job of calling out our own.

  23. When those on the left listened to Slick Willy’s pursed lips when he droned-on that: “I did not have sex with that woman…”, they all knew it was a lie but were instead judging the feigned sincerity of his lie. “Ya, someone would believe that and that’s OK because he could likely have sex with little boys on television and we would still vote for him because he’s one of us.” The mission is more important than the means. In this, the left excels. How else could the real possibility of a Hillary Clinton presidency be explained?

  24. I am a bit shocked that a few regulars here are also jumping on the blame Monica bandwagon. She may have been an adult but there is no stronger case of using power inappropriately on a subordinate than POTUS over an intern. Where as if someone hit on her in a bar and she told him to “F*ck off,” then that would be that, but if she has to work with him every day then that is a whole different matter. You think that the most powerful man in the free world could not ruin her life or even make it disappear if so desired? This is akin to blaming a young private for performing extra duties for the general or some grade eight female getting hit upon by a dirty old teacher. Positions of power are also positions of responsibility and the shame should rest on Slick Willie and not the victim.

  25. Gotta disagree with you about this one, Sasq. If charges had stuck and consequences mattered against Billy, I doubt that we’d still have The One. As for it being 20 years ago, when should people forget Armstrong’s steps, or the holomdor, of the third reich, or how government involvement to “fix” Black Friday caused a correction to become a depression. The effects of a “little white lie about sex” are finally being seen by her. I don’t think we should minimize the natural outcome of trying to please a leftist power broker.

  26. So when did Scarborough grow a pair? Or did Mika leave them on the table unattended.
    JS has been a pathetic RINO for years, now he shows a little faux outrage. He should have told Mika to effoff, but he would have to ask her permission to do so first.

  28. I would not want to held accountable for everything I did when I was 22 — would you? Of course she knows she’s giving a blow job. What she does not know us how it can ruin her life.

  29. Agreed. However, she most likely also was a little star struck and vulnerable.
    The main thing is that media largely gave him a pass. If it would have been GW can you imagine the media uproar.

  30. I agree. Monica was a twit, but I never saw her as the bad guy. It’s the President who ought to be the mature one, not some ditzy 20-something intern.
    I also think she’s looking great. Most improved hair.

  31. Looks of the faces are priceless, as mentioned above. Those faces and Joe Scarborough’s outrage are due to their grief. It is the grief of men who know they have sold their careers and their souls to a political party who’s leaders are corrupt evil men with the morals of rabid weasels. Sold for a bowl of pottage.
    Mika by contrast looks like Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS. No grief, no shame, just loving every minute.
    Meanwhile, Bill Clinton laughs and The Hildebeast schemes.

  32. Difference is Joel. There is more evidence that obumbles would be the blower rather than the blowee

  33. While I generally agree, the holodomor involved well over 7 million deaths; this is really not an event on that scale, is it? It’s just another sordid example of the high and mighty failing to maintain the moral restraint that millions of quite ordinary people apply to themselves every day. I wish such failures WERE as rare as a Moon landing or a massacre. . . .

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation