Kathy E <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Jackie :) My replies are below :)
Jackie Fellows wrote:
> Here comes the ole' devil's advocate here.
Isn't it fun doing that at times? LOL
> Question: if Willey was so concerned about her husband's whereabouts, why
> was she making an appointment to see the President to ask for a job??
> Wouldn't she be trying to find out where he was?? Where did the husband
> commit suicide (home, office, ?).
Now I ask you how many times will anyone cancel an appointment with the
president of the US? From my understanding it was hard for her to get
the appointment she finally got one, and her ultimate goal was to help
her husband out of the mess he was in. I wouldn't cancel, tragically her
husband had killed herself that day. That is a terrible thing, yet how
was she to know he was going to? I see her as thinking this might end
their problems if the president comes through with a job for her.
> Second question: if Willey was one of the Clintons friends, which it sounds
> like they were, and Bill was really the 'womanizer--no time for work, only
> sexual games guy' that people are alleging, then she would surely be aware
> of his reputation--why would she believe he wouldn't do the same to her ??
Are all of your friends and associates 100% moral? Does anyone talk
behind their backs? Do you hear rumors? If so are you ever alone with
them? Sometimes we don't want to believe what we hear, we only believe
what we know no matter what others say. Not believing something and not
wanting to believe something are two different things.
> ("I just couldn't believe this was happening") Remember she asked for the
> meeting, and I guess as a female I learned very young how to avoid
> situations where I had to be alone with a man who was a known
> womanizer--brought a friend, wandered in and sat down in a more public area
> to talk with him, etc.. This is not to excuse his behavior if he really is
> doing these things--hanging by his genitals might be an appropriate
> punishment. (I wonder though how he got this far in public life if he was
> as horney as is implied by all these "true confessions" we are hearing today
> and had such poor lack of control over his physical responses. All I see is
> a walking "h#$%-on" if all these stories are to be believed. (I apologise
> for my language here).
This is the way Scott explained it to me and what he saw happening,
there are all different types of men, there are gentlemen, there are
average guys and there are dogs in heat. The gentleman would never do
anything to offend the women, he's not like that, the average Joe would
ask the women and wait for an answer, the dog in heat would assume the
women would want the attention and do whatever he felt like, not
realizing he's harassing. Scott sees Clinton as the dog in heat.
An example Scott used was a friend of his from grade school who was
kicked out of college, the kid was on the honor roll all through school,
suddenly he came back from college expelled, Scott asked why. The guy
said he couldn't understand what went wrong, he knew a girl got drunk
one night and decided to go have sex with her, she was asleep in her
dorm room, as were her room mates, he felt she enjoyed it, but when her
room mates woke up they started screaming and such. He was kicked out.
It was a clear case of rape to me, but to this guy he does not believe
he did anything wrong, he still doesn't understand it. He said they had
gone out a couple of times and he didn't understand the big fuss. In his
mode of thinking he had the right to do what he did. Most people would
disagree. Mark was a dog in heat personality.
> Her story credible--yes, so was Mata Hari. Her telling of the story
> theatrical--yes. The makeup was perfect, the hesitant little wounded victim
> demeanor was perfect, her emotions needed a little more rehearsal.
I disagree, I don't think every one is a actor/actress I saw sincerity
in what she said. I find it amazing that some decide any one who makes
allegations against the president is automatically a liar and actress to
boot.
> Now to poor, maligned Bill, if you believe the w.h.. His story
> credible--not really. His telling of the story theatrical--yes. I couldn't have
>cast a better actor for the soap opera we are now staying tuned to on a daily basis,
>especially weekends when we know something will break. "Days at the Oval House"
>should win an emmy this year, I would think.>>>>>>>
His story or this version is not believable to me. He is doing the same
old thing he has done against every women who talks, attack the person
do whatever you can do cast doubt, he's just a poor misunderstood man,
who in reality should be the pope he's so busy he never has sex!
--
Kathy E
"I can only please one person a day, today is NOT your day, and tomorrow
isn't looking too good for you either"
http://members.delphi.com/kathylaw/ Law & Issues Mailing List
http://pw1.netcom.com/~kathye/rodeo.html - Cowboy Histories
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2990/law.htm Crime photo's
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
