Packwood wasnt PREYING on women?

Post #2,274 by boxley 7/18/01 9:54:36 PM Reply	Packwood wasnt PREYING on women? Funny that was what NOW said he was doing. Yes I was trying for a cheap funny. The feminist organizations are just old whores like any other PAC. There cause is empty rhetoric just like the NRA's designed to fill the pockets of the PAC leaders, no integrity only gimme game. thanx, bill can I have my ones and zeros back?
Post #2,278 by Brandioch 7/18/01 10:29:26 PM Reply	Ummm, I think the record shows he was. I remember numerous complaints of him initiating physical contact with women who did not want it. Strange, wasn't Packwood a Republican? On the other hand, there's the possibility for an interesting discussion private ethics vs public ethics. Or, perception vs reality.
Post #2,299 by boxley 7/19/01 9:59:58 AM Reply	Kate Wiley ring a bell? there was numerous complaints about clinton which was the point I am trying to make that NOW has a clear double standard. thanx, bill can I have my ones and zeros back?
Post #2,377 by Brandioch 7/19/01 5:58:51 PM Reply	Possibly. NOW might have a double standard. But that wasn't addressed in the original article. And, as I've pointed out, Packwood was a Republican. And the article specifically mentioned 'anti-Republican". Again, this is an excellent time to discuss public vs private ethics and activities. Or we could just see who can name more congrisscritters that have engaged in illicite/immoral/unwanted sexual activities. But I don't recognize "Kate Wiley".
Post #2,388 by a6l6e6x 7/19/01 8:26:10 PM Reply	Re: Kate Wiley. Actually it's Kathleen E. Willey. Chalk it up to poetic license. [link\|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/women031798.htm\|Refresher] The "60 Minutes" program was interesting at the time. Alex

Welcome to IWETHEY!