moved his mistress into the mayor's mansionwhile his wife and kids still lived there?
If not, why did you support millions of dollars to delve into Clinton's personal life ( BEFORE he gave any testimony).
I didn't think that you had a logical, noncombative , rational response.
2007-01-24
01:01:01
·
4 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Law & Ethics
Hello people, Rudy was NOT DIVORCED when he brought the mistress into the house while the wife and kiddies were still there. HELLO?
2007-01-24
01:16:48 ·
update #1
(CBS) New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's girlfriend is now persona non grata at Gracie Mansion.
A state judge sided with mayor's estranged wife, Donna Hanover, Monday, barring Judith Nathan from the city's official mayoral residence.
State Supreme Court Justice Judith Gische granted Hanover's request for a restraining order barring Judith Nathan from the home.
2007-01-24
01:22:42 ·
update #2
I am a conservative, not a neocon and yes that would bother me, not because he is an elected official or anything like that. It bothers me because it shows a lack of respect for his wife and kids. If a marriage didn't work out fine, it happens but your soon to be x doesn't deserve to be publicly humiliated.
2007-01-24 01:09:58
·
answer #1
·
answered by crazyhorse19682003 3
·
6⤊
0⤋
In the first place, would you care to explain just what a "neocon" is, and why you're using it as a slur?
To answer your question: Yes. I lived in NJ at the time all this was going on, and I thought it was very discourteous to his soon to be ex-wife, wicked witch of the north that she was, but that still didn't make it right. I also thought it was unprofessional and set a bad example for him as Mayor. But that's the ONLY thing he did while mayor that I have a problem with...then again, since I didn't live in NYC, it really didn't affect me.
To answer your second question, which is obviously yet another lame attempt to defend the Great Democratic God and Savior of the Modern World, "Slick Willy" Clinton: Slick Willy was the sitting President of the United States who was suspected (and later proven, by the way) of having committed a crime. He lied under oath, skippy, and that's called PERJURY.
And that's a logical, rational response. No, it's not noncombative, because neither was your question noncombative. You get back what you give, skippy.
2007-01-24 10:13:52
·
answer #2
·
answered by Team Chief 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yes, it's a little bothersome, but that's his private life and did not affect his public service. I do not recall him sexually harassing women or being accused of rape, like Clinton was. Nevertheless, I will address your false claim that there was any investigation of Clinton's private life prior to his PERJURED testimony.
The investigations into Clinton's past was in response to the many, many scandals surrounding the Clintons and their friends and their business ventures while in Arkansas. White Water, Castle Rock, Cattle Futures Trading, Impeding investigation of S&L illegalities, Receiving campaign donations from foreign sources tied to the Chinese Red Army, etc. Many people where indicted and convicted of crimes regarding these scandals.
It was only after his perjured testimony at his sexual harassment trial that his private sexual dalliances were investigated. There was no reason or authority to do so before his perjury.
It is also truth that it was Clinton & the Democrats who renewed the Independent Counsel act, and it was Clinton & the Democrats who had, with great fanfare, enacted a law allowing the sexual history of a defendent to be used to show a pattern of sexual predation in a sexual harassment trial.
It was Janet Reno who appointed the Independent Counsel Ken Starr, and it was a panel of judges who authorized him to expand his investigations.
The truth is a bit at odds with your version of history.
2007-01-24 09:29:55
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Not a "neocon" but I'll answer anyway.
Of course it bothers me that he did something like that. However, he wasn't president. And that really WAS just his personal life. I don't agree with it, but does that mean I have a right to judge him? Nah.
As for former President Clinton, he was under investigation for rape, sexual harassment, and abuse of power. They had every right to delve into his "personal life."
I don't judge former President Clinton for having an affair (or twenty). I just think it's a bit suspect that he was accused of rape and sexual harassment by so many different women.
2007-01-24 09:12:37
·
answer #4
·
answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7
·
2⤊
0⤋