Why do libs frequently obfuscate by asking for source of things in the mainstream news... Clinton "what you can do to someone against...?
Here younwill see a libs trying to deny it happened or that there's a context when doing things against someone's will is okay.
This was a PBS interview, it's been all over the news...wouldnt it be more honest just to not answer the question than to try to pretend it's okay or didn't happen or that it's out of context?
Whooo...sorry...liberal and honest in the same sentence...had to pause for a good laugh.
Llwelyn...it is a fact. It's true and it's mainstream knowledge.
- 3 years ago
Because most of the things you claim have no actual basis in reality.
Which is why you chose the one time you actually could give a source.
Did it hurt? Are you butthurt by the whole experience of having to actually give a source? It isn't a difficult thing to do, so why do you refuse to do this all the time, when it actually makes your rants better?
- ?Lv 73 years ago
The phrase is horrible, but in his interview he's clearly saying that expectations for behavior - particularly of men - have changed over the years.
For example, while cat-calling in the past has been tolerated, it's becoming increasingly criticized.
In the PBS interview, Clinton is asked if he thinks it's a good thing that norms have changed. He responded by saying:
"I think it's a good thing that we should all have higher standards. I think the norms have really changed in terms of, what you can do to somebody against their will, how much you can crowd their space, make them miserable at work."
My old boss once joked about in the past they used to be able to tug on women's hair at work, and now they can't do that or they'll be reprimanded. I think that's the sort of thing Clinton is referencing.
- Anonymous3 years ago
Why do we insist on FACTS?