International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Senator Al Franken Kissed and Groped Me Without My Consent, And There’s Nothing Funny (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=324808)

The Big Dog 17th November 2017 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12081504)
What effect? Have the pictures altered anyone's opinion as to her credibility? The only effect I have seen of it is that you have carried on with this one horse stage show for 9 pages now instead of joining in with the rest of the conversation. All you have done in the last nine pages is scream "slut shaming".

Do you think that the NSFW photos damage her credibility? Does anyone here? If not, then why are you still going on about this after other 450 posts in this thread. Seems that the one with the issue here might be you because you are the one that keeps bring it up.

Curious, you did not actually address my post that you quoted. Huh.

Or the post I was replying to.

Curious

logger 17th November 2017 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12081504)
What effect? Have the pictures altered anyone's opinion as to her credibility? The only effect I have seen of it is that you have carried on with this one horse stage show for 9 pages now instead of joining in with the rest of the conversation. All you have done in the last nine pages is scream "slut shaming".

Do you think that the NSFW photos damage her credibility? Does anyone here? If not, then why are you still going on about this after other 450 posts in this thread. Seems that the one with the issue here might be you because you are the one that keeps bring it up.

Because it was classic slut shaming and instead of condemning it, people are still trying to defend it.

PhantomWolf 17th November 2017 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12081511)
Curious, you did not actually address my post that you quoted. Huh.

Or the post I was replying to.

Curious

Curious, you did not answer a single question in my post. Huh.

Curious.

PhantomWolf 17th November 2017 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logger (Post 12081512)
Because it was classic slut shaming and instead of condemning it, people are still trying to defend it.

Do you think that her posing in scantily clad photos damages her credibility?

Foolmewunz 17th November 2017 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logger (Post 12081509)
Lol

So telling people he was banned is a lie?

Yep. Just as telling people he was not banned is a lie.

logger 17th November 2017 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12081519)
Do you think that her posing in scantily clad photos damages her credibility?

No, because it’s completely normal. If she was totally naked, does that give a man the green light to do what he likes?

Why is this so difficult for those on the left to understand?

logger 17th November 2017 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz (Post 12081522)
Yep. Just as telling people he was not banned is a lie.

Lol

Just as telling people he WASNT wearing a red dress is a lie too? Can’t make this stuff up folks!

casebro 17th November 2017 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12081374)
I thought 'dong' among other words were worse. By all means do tell us the PC word I should have used.

Penis I guess, I'll try not to offend you. :rolleyes:

Hmm, If the offensiveness of the C word is to call a woman that, inferring that woman are only sex organs, I guess you shouldn't call a guy a Dick. But "C" as a substitute for vagina is about like calling a guys parts Junk, don't you think? There's Johnson, Prick(too weapon-ish?) , Package (for the whole ensemble),... lots of works more neutral than Junk. Dong is a bit jokish, I see why you didn't go with it.

Anyway, lets drop the tah-tahs and get out uglies back on subject. :D

PhantomWolf 17th November 2017 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logger (Post 12081523)
No, because it’s completely normal.

Has anyone in this thread stated that she is less credible because she posed for scantily clad photos?

logger 17th November 2017 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12081533)
Has anyone in this thread stated that she is less credible because she posed for scantily clad photos?

No they’ve said she should be used to these kinds of reactions by men.

Foolmewunz 17th November 2017 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logger (Post 12081526)
Lol

Just as telling people he WASNT wearing a red dress is a lie too? Can’t make this stuff up folks!

Not surprisingly, nuances don't work real well with you.

The fact is the records do not say Roy Moore Wasn't Banned or Roy Moore Was Banned because the records don't exist.

If one is a lie the other is, too. You wish to call one (the evil librul one) a lie, and the other not. Neither is proven. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Might be evidence of absinthe, but that's another thread.

The Big Dog 17th November 2017 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12081516)
Curious, you did not answer a single question in my post. Huh.

Curious.

Nothing curious about it.

But yeah, the single solitary purpose in bringing up her history and her nsfw pictures was to blatantly attack her credibility even though it was utterly irrelevant to her claims and the *********** scumbags despicable conduct.

You dig?

Skeptic Ginger 17th November 2017 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angrysoba (Post 12081399)
Does her history of working at Hooters or posing nude for Playboy have any relevance to her allegations against Franken?

I think it is a dangerous route to go down.

Yes, it is relevant and you don't have to agree, but it's bull **** to claim my point has anything to do with slut shaming.

Two things, if your whole adult life has included men objectifying you, it's possible you interpret men's actions through that bias about men.

And two, listening to this woman's obsession over the last 10 years (her statement is that this has been burning her up for 10 years) with this one USO tour and this one man, one has to ask why is that? Was Franken really that offensive or does Tweeden's hate for him color her perception?

The complaint is that the skit he wrote was offensive. That makes him a jerk for not asking if she was OK with the skit or noticing she wasn't. And we have her claim he used his tongue (it's my understanding actors don't use their tongues in kissing scenes). If Franken used skits to get tongue kisses I expect we should see other victims coming forward. We still haven't.

As for the grope joke, I'm sorry but a grope is not the same as a pretend one.

You don't have to agree but like I said, it's bull **** to claim this has jack to do with slut shaming. At least get the argument right.

Foolmewunz 17th November 2017 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by casebro (Post 12081531)
Hmm, If the offensiveness of the C word is to call a woman that, inferring that woman are only sex organs, I guess you shouldn't call a guy a Dick. But "C" as a substitute for vagina is about like calling a guys parts Junk, don't you think? There's Johnson, Prick(too weapon-ish?) , Package (for the whole ensemble),... lots of works more neutral than Junk. Dong is a bit jokish, I see why you didn't go with it.

Anyway, lets drop the tah-tahs and get out uglies back on subject. :D

"Junk" doesn't have any ugly connotations. Never has. Guys use it all the time,... affectionately.

No. You're wrong. Incorrect. Misinterpretation. Whatever. Drop it.

logger 17th November 2017 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz (Post 12081537)
Not surprisingly, nuances don't work real well with you.

The fact is the records do not say Roy Moore Wasn't Banned or Roy Moore Was Banned because the records don't exist.

If one is a lie the other is, too. You wish to call one (the evil librul one) a lie, and the other not. Neither is proven. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Might be evidence of absinthe, but that's another thread.

Actually you’re wrong again. The only reason I’ve been posting about this lie is because of all the uninformed people on here saying he was banned when in fact there is no proof of that. The fact that the people posting the lie are liberals should also help you with your other earlier accusations.

PhantomWolf 17th November 2017 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logger (Post 12081536)
No

So the pictures have had zero effect on her credibility?

PhantomWolf 17th November 2017 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12081538)
Nothing curious about it.

But yeah, the single solitary purpose in bringing up her history and her nsfw pictures was to blatantly attack her credibility even though it was utterly irrelevant to her claims and the *********** scumbags despicable conduct.

You dig?

Do you think that her credibility was damaged because of the pictures?

The Big Dog 17th November 2017 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12081533)
Has anyone in this thread stated that she is less credible because she posed for scantily clad photos?

:eek:

Is this serious???

Why do you think they brought it up. She worked at hooters, she got groped before, hmm, why would she attack poor al franken? Hmmm.

Here are some nsfw photos to prove she probably got groped, while working at hooters. Did I mention she worked at hooters.

The Big Dog 17th November 2017 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12081546)
Do you think that her credibility was damaged because of the pictures?

I absolutely have shown that was the intent in bringing up those grossly irrelevant history and photos.

You find the argument why they were brought up convincing?

You said, no, right? Right.

logger 17th November 2017 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12081539)
Yes, it is relevant and you don't have to agree, but it's bull **** to claim my point has anything to do with slut shaming.

Two things, if your whole adult life has included men objectifying you, it's possible you interpret men's actions through that bias about men.

Lol
Except when a butt ugly Senator shoves his nasty tongue down your throat and grabs your boobs when you’re asleep. I suspect she’s interpreting it correctly. That you think she off in her interpretation is again, wait for it, CLASSIC SLUT SHAMING!!!!
Quote:

And two, listening to this woman's obsession over the last 10 years (her statement is that this has been burning her up for 10 years) with this one USO tour and this one man, one has to ask why is that? Was Franken really that offensive or does Tweeden's hate for him color her perception?
Because the victim should like her attacker? Holy ****
Anyone want to defend this one?
Quote:

The complaint is that the skit he wrote was offensive. That makes him a jerk for not asking if she was OK with the skit or noticing she wasn't. And we have her claim he used his tongue (it's my understanding actors don't use their tongues in kissing scenes). If Franken used skits to get tongue kisses I expect we should see other victims coming forward. We still haven't.
With witnesses, somehow she’s lying? Frankestein couldnt have used his tongue because actors don’t use their tongues. Lol

Quote:

You don't have to agree but like I said, it's bull **** to claim this has jack to do with slut shaming. At least get the argument right.
It’s classic slut shaming and you’re still doing it!

logger 17th November 2017 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12081544)
So the pictures have had zero effect on her credibility?

Would they have an effect on any models credibility?

Regnad Kcin 17th November 2017 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 12080988)
You seem to be eliding over the unwilling bit.

You seem to be scampering further and further away from my questioning this:
Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 12080307)
Of course they do. I assume the public post is virtue signaling and the other is his authentic self.

So let’s try it once again.

If I’m reading you correctly, you are “assuming” Senator Franken’s legislative and representative work with regard to issues and causes related to women is “virtue signaling,” while Mr. Franken’s prior career as a comedy writer and performer, who has, by his own admission, been occasionally risqué or even distasteful, is his “authentic self.” One persona is real, the other is phony - have I got that right?

Craig4 17th November 2017 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logger (Post 12081493)

That's a curious interpretation of the article. Clearly, you want it to be a lie.

Skeptic Ginger 17th November 2017 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cain (Post 12081457)
Could a mitigating factor be that she had consented to being a sex object on the tour?

I don't think so. But I do think the offense at the grope joke is over the top. Men are going to make sexual jokes about someone who is on the tour as a sex object. It's part of the schtick.

For example, take the Bob Hope classic USO tours. From the USO website: Bob Hope: The USO’s One-Man Morale Machine
Quote:

Comedian Redd Foxx, singer Lola Falana and a dozen “American Beauties,” among others, joined Hope on that tour. But Hope and his USO gang’s presence on the tiny island was about much more than entertainment.

“They increased the morale immensely,” Ronning recalled. “It was miserable there. But that visit really made the difference in our deployment—that got us through the next four, five months. He brought such enthusiasm, brought your life back to you. You felt like you were renewed,” he said. “That was one of the biggest thrills of my life.”...

He loved to joke about sex and women: “There’s still a great need for the USO. Some of our bases are pretty remote. Last Christmas in Alaska, I met a GI who was so lonely he was going steady with his tattoo. And his buddies kept asking him if she’s got a sister!”...

Actress Brooke Shields recalls having an awesome time with Bob Hope, too. She was 15 when she performed in her first show in 1981, “Bob Hope Salutes the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.” It was her first of 27 shows with Hope. ...

“The letters were amazing,” Linda said. “They had to do with such a variety of topics—asking when they were going to be coming home and would he be able to set a date with Lana Turner or Rita Hayworth. There were a lot of those.”
Hope and Jennifer Hosten, Miss World 1970, obviously sex is an important part of overseas USO tours.

Hope and Rachel Welch

Oh look, Hope is sneaking a kiss. No it wasn't on the lips or with a tongue, but USO tours have a century long tradition of including sexy women and sex jokes.

You get the point, the USO tour includes objectifying women. And that's fine. It also makes a grope joke a bit less beyond the pale.

PhantomWolf 17th November 2017 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12081560)
I absolutely have shown that was the intent in bringing up those grossly irrelevant history and photos.

You find the argument why they were brought up convincing?

You said, no, right? Right.

I see you are totally incapable of answering questions or progressing the conversation. So, good luck with that.

logger 17th November 2017 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12081582)
I don't think so. But I do think the offense at the grope joke is over the top. Men are going to make sexual jokes about someone who is on the tour as a sex object. It's part of the schtick.

For example, take the Bob Hope classic USO tours. From the USO website: Bob Hope: The USO’s One-Man Morale Machine

Hope and Jennifer Hosten, Miss World 1970, obviously sex is an important part of overseas USO tours.

Hope and Rachel Welch

Oh look, Hope is sneaking a kiss. No it wasn't on the lips or with a tongue, but USO tours have a century long tradition of including sexy women and sex jokes.

You get the point, the USO tour includes objectifying women. And that's fine. It also makes a grope joke a bit less beyond the pale.

Anyone want to defend this? She can’t see my posts.

PhantomWolf 17th November 2017 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logger (Post 12081565)
Would they have an effect on any models credibility?

Answering a question with a question I see.

The Big Dog 17th November 2017 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12081586)
I see you are totally incapable of answering questions or progressing the conversation. So, good luck with that.

Lolz, k.

Oh man...

Skeptic Ginger 17th November 2017 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minoosh (Post 12081489)
You're right that he did accept responsibility, but it rings hollow to me. And that's my completely subjective opinion, so asking me to defend it objectively is probably not going to help. I don't know that he "gets it"; on the other hand I'm not sure what that would look like, either.

But you are saying it rings hollow without knowing what is factual and what was an exaggeration of the facts.

Yes, I believe Tweeden perceived the situation as she claims. I don't doubt that. But unless more women come forward, do we really know if she perceived the events factually?

Considering we see evidence all the time of people perceiving the same facts in significantly different ways what you perceive as disingenuous may actually be closer to the truth. You can't say without additional reports.

If a 14 year old says Moore took his and her clothes off, that's hard to interpret more than one way. But imagining Franken was manipulating the skit to get his tongue in Tweeden's mouth? Who knows?

What are other women saying Franken did during kissing skits?

logger 17th November 2017 08:27 PM

I’m stunned so many on the left continue to let this woman be slut shamed!

fuelair 17th November 2017 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minoosh (Post 12081140)
Here's a question just out of interest: How many apologies in any of these cases include the simple phrase "I'm sorry," as in "I'm sorry I acted this way," not, "I'm sorry if you interpreted my actions this way"?

Very important distinction that! At most so many violators of others value the second option as it shifts blame to the victim instead of the perp!!!!





"I am so sorry you interpreted my shooting you this way!!!!!"

logger 17th November 2017 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 12081591)
Answering a question with a question I see.

Can’t get anything past you! Is there something wrong with answering your question with a question? Especially since I already answered it and you just decided to ask it again.

Foolmewunz 17th November 2017 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logger (Post 12081543)
Actually you’re wrong again. The only reason I’ve been posting about this lie is because of all the uninformed people on here saying he was banned when in fact there is no proof of that. The fact that the people posting the lie are liberals should also help you with your other earlier accusations.

No, that's not the reason you're posting about it. You're posting about it because a reprehensible slug of a Republican is under attack and you're trying to do something to help clear his name. With all both of your followers, I'm sure you're making headway.

A Dem is going to take an Alabama Senate seat. Moore is suffering not just from the accusations but from being in the public eye. "Oh, that's that Ten Commandments guy, I'll vote for him" was going to get him elected. "Eeew, that's the shifty-eyed lying sumbitz who's been dodging questions about being a dirty old man" is going to lose it for him.


ETA: Sorry fellow posters... this is a derail and belongs in the Judge Roy thread. I'll stop.

logger 17th November 2017 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz (Post 12081614)
No, that's not the reason you're posting about it. You're posting about it because a reprehensible slug of a Republican is under attack and you're trying to do something to help clear his name. With all both of your followers, I'm sure you're making headway.

Wow, never dreamed I had that much power. Why don’t you stop making this argument about me?

Foolmewunz 17th November 2017 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logger (Post 12081626)
Wow, never dreamed I had that much power. Why don’t you stop making this argument about me?

:p "all both" ??? :p

Cain 17th November 2017 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logger (Post 12081475)
Yeah she was probably wearing tight pants too.

<snip> for rule 0/12
Mod WarningModded for rule 0/12, be civil & polite, adress the argument, not the arguer.
Posted By:TubbaBlubba


This is a matter of context. A Frankenesque picture with a stranger passed out on the subway is different than one taken with girlfriend at a house party.

Also, to clarify, not that I should need to, I'm suggesting their relationship on the tour could be mitigating, not exculpatory. The picture would be boorish and unbecoming even if Tweeden had consented to it.

Skeptic Ginger 17th November 2017 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz (Post 12081540)
"Junk" doesn't have any ugly connotations. Never has. Guys use it all the time,... affectionately. ....

Whew! I appreciate hearing that.

I understand though that equivalences can sometimes be usable weapons. Of course I don't know that casebro actually was offended or was just bringing up a distraction. Either way, I'll be happy to use the word penis in this thread. :cool:

Minoosh 17th November 2017 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 12081593)
But you are saying it rings hollow without knowing what is factual and what was an exaggeration of the facts.

Yes, I believe Tweeden perceived the situation as she claims. I don't doubt that. But unless more women come forward, do we really know if she perceived the events factually?

Considering we see evidence all the time of people perceiving the same facts in significantly different ways what you perceive as disingenuous may actually be closer to the truth. You can't say without additional reports.

If a 14 year old says Moore took his and her clothes off, that's hard to interpret more than one way. But imagining Franken was manipulating the skit to get his tongue in Tweeden's mouth? Who knows?

What are other women saying Franken did during kissing skits?

Agreed, if Franken made a habit of this then I'd expect multiple allegations.

Both of these stories strike me as incredibly sad, for maybe opposite reasons. The Franken one because I kind of wish Tweeden had said, "Do that again and I'll bite your tongue off." Instead of carrying it around for 10 years. She's a powerful woman and it bothers me that she felt she couldn't confront Franken in a way that might make him see, in real time, that he was being a jackass.

Moore, because parents were supposedly giving permission to allow Moore to date their 16 (or 14?) year old daughters. If an older man can bargain with parents for time alone with their teenagers, a girl might have felt like her parents were offering her up on a platter. And that is assuming the most charitable explanation of the facts - not the allegations that Moore denies. I don't think the women are lying about it, but even leaving that aside for now, he is or was a creep.

In both of these situations, the girls/women did not want to cause trouble, or rock the boat, or whatever. Well, I hope they see that they CAN rock the boat. They maybe don't have to stay stuck in shame or anger.

In the meantime, another sad thing happening IMO is that the American people are being distracted by decades-old incidents. That's what the hot conversation has been, at least for the past couple of days. Time to let these incident play out, however they will. Only one IMO has the potential of significantly altering the Senate, which is the bigger picture here. If Alabama Republicans stay away from the polls, that could be significant. Meanwhile Franken, even if he resigned, would most likely be replaced by a Democrat. Despite the trill of scandal that has livened the news week, changes in the Senate will matter more.

Skeptic Ginger 17th November 2017 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minoosh (Post 12081708)
Agreed, if Franken made a habit of this then I'd expect multiple allegations.

Both of these stories strike me as incredibly sad, for maybe opposite reasons. The Franken one because I kind of wish Tweeden had said, "Do that again and I'll bite your tongue off." Instead of carrying it around for 10 years. She's a powerful woman and it bothers me that she felt she couldn't confront Franken in a way that might make him see, in real time, that he was being a jackass.

I can agree with this, completely.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Minoosh (Post 12081708)
In the meantime, another sad thing happening IMO is that the American people are being distracted by decades-old incidents....

And in the meantime, the country is being devastated by rich lobbyists and legislators.

Minoosh 17th November 2017 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz (Post 12081614)
ETA: Sorry fellow posters... this is a derail and belongs in the Judge Roy thread. I'll stop.

Well sticking to Franken here, as I said above his little scandal is not likely to change the makeup of the Senate. Even if he's guilty as sin, the most extreme solution would only mean a replacement Democrat.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:18 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.