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)

ahhell 20th December 2017 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by applecorped (Post 12120424)
I hope Franken changes his mind and refuses to step down, that would be entertaining

I hope he does step down. It helps give a clear field for the dems to run on the GOP being the party of pedophilia, rape, and sexual harassment.

He shouldn't because his crimes weren't nearly that severe and the voters should have a chance to decide but he should for the good of the party and country.

theprestige 20th December 2017 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahhell (Post 12120506)
I hope he does step down. It helps give a clear field for the dems to run on the GOP being the party of pedophilia, rape, and sexual harassment.

He shouldn't because his crimes weren't nearly that severe and the voters should have a chance to decide but he should for the good of the party and country.

I'm not sure that's going to help much. The Dems have been running on that platform for decades now. Trump's election shows that voters no longer give a **** about that particular narrative.

Especially compared to the new, emerging narrative that the Dems are the party of pedophilia, rape, and sexual harassment--right up until the moment they get caught.

Skeptic Ginger 20th December 2017 01:33 PM

Politico: Franken urged to reverse his resignation
Quote:

At least four senators are urging Al Franken to reconsider resigning, including two who issued statements calling for the resignation two weeks ago and said they now feel remorse over what they feel was a rush to judgment.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who urged Franken not to step down to begin with — at least not before he went through an Ethics Committee investigation — said the Minnesota senator was railroaded by fellow Democrats. ...

He added, “Here’s a man, that all he said [was], ‘Take me through the Ethics Committee. I will live by whatever decision and I will walk away thinking about this opportunity I’ve had while I was here. But you find out if I’m a predator.’” ...

The feeling that Franken should reconsider has gained some steam outside of the Senate, too, among Democratic donors and others, including a former Republican governor of Minnesota, Arne Carlson.

“I and many other people — and specifically feminists — feel that it’s not too late, that he should not resign, and that the rush to sweep him out was ill-conceived, and we think that he has been supportive of women and women’s issues,” said Emily Jane Goodman, a retired New York state Supreme Court judge who’s helped start a Feminists for Franken group on Facebook. “Although we do deplore any kind of gender-based misconduct, we think at the same time he is entitled to a fair hearing.”

Al Franken: The Obvious Setup and Liberals Took the Bait
Quote:

So in scanning any Democrat that maintained both logic and a powerful presence as well as one that is knee-deep in calling out those Republicans involved in lying and RussiaGate, there was one name that is both popular and had the potential to be taken down: Al Franken. And so, a woman named Leeann Tweeden has come forward to accuse Al Franken of sexual assault during a USO tour in which they performed together in Afghanistan in 2006. Conservatives know the liberal market and also understand that if they throw out a piece of red meat that accuses a well-respected Democrat of having bad behavior, liberals will climb all over each other to rip him or her apart; and that is exactly what happened as many liberals called for Franken to step down, refused to believe or look at any of the logic behind the accusation and proceeded to argue with each other under the defense that “we are better than them”....

Franken’s past a hot potential to find at least one or two questionable situations and when you added in his work with the USO tours, it was a formula for success for conservatives.
It's an opinion piece that reflects my sentiment.

But re the set up part, Tom Arnold is also out there Tweeting he knows Tweeden and knows she had been badgered by the GOP to make a complaint. He was then attacked for misspelling Tweeden as evidence he didn't know her very well. And Roger Stone is involved. :p

Quote:

If this was indeed a situation of a woman coming forward to accuse an attacker, why did Roger Stone, know and tweet about it twelve hours before Tweeden’s announcement came out? As described in a Miami.cbslocal article:

“Hours before allegations of sexual misconduct were publicly-leveled against Senator Al Franken, Roger Stone, a self-described master of the political dark arts, suggested he knew the attack on the Minnesota Democrat was about to be made. A Twitter account linked to the on-again, off-again Trump adviser posted a quote from Stone in the early hours Thursday morning that read: “Roger Stone says it’s Al Franken’s `time in the barrel’. Franken next in long list of Democrats to be accused of `grabby’ behavior.”...

This situation appears as if it is a complete and total “setup” and yet a vast number of liberals, in a “holier than thou” attitude, refuse to use critical thinking for analyzing the condition. They continued to attack Franken in a vicious manner, going so far as requesting that he step down from his Senate position. This is exactly the response that conservatives wanted to see. Franken’s Senate position is a powerful one and well-needed for the Democrats.

tyr_13 20th December 2017 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12120584)
I'm not sure that's going to help much. The Dems have been running on that platform for decades now. Trump's election shows that voters no longer give a **** about that particular narrative.


This is where it's again relevant to point out that Trump lost the popular vote. It does not show that voters in general don't care that Republicans give their politicians a pass, but that Republicans don't care (or care so little it doesn't matter).

Quote:

Especially compared to the new, emerging narrative that the Dems are the party of pedophilia, rape, and sexual harassment--right up until the moment they get caught.
Yeah, truth is old fake news, and 'narrative' is the new hotness.

Even if true, it still gives them the moral high ground over Republicans. Besides, what do you want from the Dems? Them to reject people before there is evidence they're doing something bad? 'The Dems aren't psychic, vote Roy Moore!'


For decades one side has said sexual assault is a serious issue that pervades society, and while working to take measures against it have often failed to live up to this goal on more personal levels. Now they're even taking those hard final steps. The other side often mocks the very idea it's a major problem, attacks those who do work to address it, and not only excuse it but support candidates who oppose women voting on top of having extremely credible accusations of sexual misconduct including sexual assault. The only time Republicans (as a political party mind you) care is if it's a brown person or a dem accused.

Yes, the Dems are taking even higher grounds on this issue that they've had high ground over the Republicans my entire lifetime. Good luck convincing people that the Dems becoming even more moral than they have been is somehow an indictment of them. That's a tall 'narrative'.

Mike! 2nd January 2018 01:11 PM

I just saw on the news, today is his last day in the Senate.

applecorped 2nd January 2018 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike! (Post 12132260)
I just saw on the news, today is his last day in the Senate.

[Taps]

theprestige 2nd January 2018 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyr_13 (Post 12120963)
This is where it's again relevant to point out that Trump lost the popular vote.

There was no popular vote. The two-party dominance and the EC system mean that a lot of voters don't have a lot of motivation to go to the polls for national elections. I voted in California last year. I'm a conservative: how much relevance did my vote have, out side of local ballot issues? Why would I even go to the polls? How does the "popular vote" narrative on the left account for this confounding factor?

There weren't even any local issues that really mattered to me. I voted anyway, because it amused me to do so, but it's disingenuous to claim that the ballot results from California represented an accurate or meaningful count of support for either presidential candidate. "More people wanted Hillary" is a Just So Story, invented by grasping at an artifact of the US electoral system.

lobosrul5 2nd January 2018 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12132369)
There was no popular vote. The two-party dominance and the EC system mean that a lot of voters don't have a lot of motivation to go to the polls for national elections. I voted in California last year. I'm a conservative: how much relevance did my vote have, out side of local ballot issues?

There weren't even any local issues that really mattered to me. I voted anyway, because it amused me to do so, but it's disingenuous to claim that the ballot results from California represented an accurate or meaningful count of support for either presidential candidate. "More people wanted Hillary" is a Just So Story, invented by grasping at an artifact of the US electoral system.

Semantics. The popular vote has no legal bearing in a US presidential election, but its silly to say it doesn't exist.

tyr_13 2nd January 2018 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12132369)
There was no popular vote. The two-party dominance and the EC system mean that a lot of voters don't have a lot of motivation to go to the polls for national elections. I voted in California last year. I'm a conservative: how much relevance did my vote have, out side of local ballot issues?

There weren't even any local issues that really mattered to me. I voted anyway, because it amused me to do so, but it's disingenuous to claim that the ballot results from California represented an accurate or meaningful count of support for either presidential candidate. "More people wanted Hillary" is a Just So Story, invented by grasping at an artifact of the US electoral system.

You said that Trump's election showed that voters didn't care about that narrative (a narrative that's accurate it should be noted). It shows no such thing, in part because more voters voted for someone else. More than that, more voters voted for one of his opponents, not just for his opponents combined.

So when you say that it's disingenuous to claim the ballot results from California represented an accurate or meaningful count of support, why do you still believe the election represents an accurate or meaningful metric of feedback on Republicans being morally inferior to Dems in regards to sexual misconduct?

Who more people wanted to be president is not an 'artifact of the US electoral system'. That Trump won despite, by every piece of polling data including the actual vote numbers, having millions more people wanting his opponent to win is an artifact of the US electoral system.

More information on the power of this 'narrative' is the Moore loss. Moore, despite showing blatant and illegal disdain for the US Constitution, was basically a lock to win until his history of sexual misconduct came to be public knowledge. Voter turnout was up including with Republicans, but he still lost. This is again completely consistent with it matter to voters, just less with Republicans. Many of them, registered Republicans, wrote in names that could not win.

What was the relevance of that? Just symbolic, and moral. Much like voting for Trump in California, but with the opposite message.

theprestige 2nd January 2018 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lobosrul5 (Post 12132372)
Semantics. The popular vote has no legal bearing in a US presidential election, but its silly to say it doesn't exist.

It's silly to say the "popular vote" exists as a meaningful indicator in the context in which it keeps getting trotted out. The truth is that the left has to say she won some ersatz popularity contest as a way to make sense of the fact that she lost the actual election. Hillary Clinton had one job. One. Job. Winning the "popular vote" was not that job.

theprestige 2nd January 2018 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyr_13 (Post 12132394)
You said that Trump's election showed that voters didn't care about that narrative (a narrative that's accurate it should be noted). It shows no such thing, in part because more voters voted for someone else. More than that, more voters voted for one of his opponents, not just for his opponents combined.

So when you say that it's disingenuous to claim the ballot results from California represented an accurate or meaningful count of support, why do you still believe the election represents an accurate or meaningful metric of feedback on Republicans being morally inferior to Dems in regards to sexual misconduct?

Who more people wanted to be president is not an 'artifact of the US electoral system'. That Trump won despite, by every piece of polling data including the actual vote numbers, having millions more people wanting his opponent to win is an artifact of the US electoral system.

More information on the power of this 'narrative' is the Moore loss. Moore, despite showing blatant and illegal disdain for the US Constitution, was basically a lock to win until his history of sexual misconduct came to be public knowledge. Voter turnout was up including with Republicans, but he still lost. This is again completely consistent with it matter to voters, just less with Republicans. Many of them, registered Republicans, wrote in names that could not win.

What was the relevance of that? Just symbolic, and moral. Much like voting for Trump in California, but with the opposite message.

Would you feel better if I qualified "voters" somehow?

lobosrul5 2nd January 2018 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12132412)
It's silly to say the "popular vote" exists as a meaningful indicator in the context in which it keeps getting trotted out. The truth is that the left has to say she won some ersatz popularity contest as a way to make sense of the fact that she lost the actual election. Hillary Clinton had one job. One. Job. Winning the "popular vote" was not that job.


Or maybe they're saying the candidate with the most votes should win rather than an archaic system that was designed to keep someone like Trump out of office. Also its nothing new. It was certainly discussed in 1876 & 1888.

I'd like to know what you think is going to happen if more and more people move to "liberal" states and we end up having a president lose with 60% of the vote?

thaiboxerken 2nd January 2018 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyr_13 (Post 12132394)
You said that Trump's election showed that voters didn't care about that narrative (a narrative that's accurate it should be noted). It shows no such thing, in part because more voters voted for someone else. More than that, more voters voted for one of his opponents, not just for his opponents combined.

Trumpublicans want to claim a mandate based on "the american voters" but want to ignore the american voters and prefer to base the mandate on the Electoral College. They can't stand the fact that Trump is so unpopular that most voters did not want him in office.

tyr_13 2nd January 2018 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12132414)
Would you feel better if I qualified "voters" somehow?

Probably. If you had said 'key voters', it would have been accurate. 'People who vote Republican', yeah. But conflating what voters want with things like Trump being elected is just incorrect. He's the most unpopular president in modern poling. This isn't an unknowable 'just so' story; he is not what the voters wanted by every metric we have. He's what the electoral system produced. He's what the state systems 'wanted' for a creative use of the word.

He won. He did not win by being what most (or even the most) voters wanted.

WilliamSeger 3rd January 2018 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12132412)
It's silly to say the "popular vote" exists as a meaningful indicator in the context in which it keeps getting trotted out. The truth is that the left has to say she won some ersatz popularity contest as a way to make sense of the fact that she lost the actual election. Hillary Clinton had one job. One. Job. Winning the "popular vote" was not that job.

Yes, I'm still trying to make sense of the fact that so many Americans are so bigoted and resentful that they voted for a lying fascist demagogue and his transparently empty "only I can fix it" promises -- as if such an obviously ignorant and incompetent person could fix anything. As if such an absurdly self-absorbed person really cared about anything except his own bloated, fragile ego. I really don't want to face the apparent fact that as a nation, no longer able to distinguish between reality and reality TV, we have become too stupid and gullible to govern ourselves rationally. And don't tell me to blame Hillary because she was such a bad candidate; you guys had like 20+ candidates to chose from but you really, really liked the racist, misogynistic, xenophobic demagogue.

John Jones 3rd January 2018 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lobosrul5 (Post 12132437)
Or maybe they're saying the candidate with the most votes should win rather than an archaic system that was designed to keep someone like Trump out of office. Also its nothing new. It was certainly discussed in 1876 & 1888.
[...]


Or maybe?
I can't wait for this claim's justification.

Or maybe?

John Jones 3rd January 2018 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lobosrul5 (Post 12132437)
Or maybe they're saying the candidate with the most votes should win rather than an archaic system that was designed to keep someone like Trump out of office. Also its nothing new. It was certainly discussed in 1876 & 1888.

I'd like to know what you think is going to happen if more and more people move to "liberal" states and we end up having a president lose with 60% of the vote?


Same to you.

dann 3rd January 2018 03:07 AM

Where did the Al Franken thread go?!

Wolrab 3rd January 2018 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12132858)
Where did the Al Franken thread go?!

I don't care as long as he doesn't go back to work for SNL.

theprestige 3rd January 2018 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dann (Post 12132858)
Where did the Al Franken thread go?!

Al Franken is done.

applecorped 3rd January 2018 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger (Post 12132817)
Yes, I'm still trying to make sense of the fact that so many Americans are so bigoted and resentful that they voted for a lying fascist demagogue and his transparently empty "only I can fix it" promises -- as if such an obviously ignorant and incompetent person could fix anything. As if such an absurdly self-absorbed person really cared about anything except his own bloated, fragile ego. I really don't want to face the apparent fact that as a nation, no longer able to distinguish between reality and reality TV, we have become too stupid and gullible to govern ourselves rationally. And don't tell me to blame Hillary because she was such a bad candidate; you guys had like 20+ candidates to chose from but you really, really liked the racist, misogynistic, xenophobic demagogue.


We?

ahhell 3rd January 2018 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger (Post 12132817)
Yes, I'm still trying to make sense of the fact that so many Americans are so bigoted and resentful that they voted for a lying fascist demagogue and his transparently empty "only I can fix it" promises -- as if such an obviously ignorant and incompetent person could fix anything. As if such an absurdly self-absorbed person really cared about anything except his own bloated, fragile ego. I really don't want to face the apparent fact that as a nation, no longer able to distinguish between reality and reality TV, we have become too stupid and gullible to govern ourselves rationally. And don't tell me to blame Hillary because she was such a bad candidate; you guys had like 20+ candidates to chose from but you really, really liked the racist, misogynistic, xenophobic demagogue.

Keep in mind that anyone who runs for president is necessarily a narcissistic ******* who thinks and often says, "only I can fix it". The 20 other candidates are also a reason Trump got through, they split the vote among GOP voter's who didn't want said narcissistic *******. And really I blame I don't blame the Hillary because she was such a bad candidate, it was the Dems vault because they refused to see that running such a bad candidate essentially unopposed in the primary in a primary that really did give the impression of of being rigged. Seriously, WA state had a primary that literally didn't matter. Can you blame Dem voters for feeling cheated?

Granted, the GOP leadership is really to blame for letting their party slip out of their control and running a much more democratic primary than the Dems.

lobosrul5 3rd January 2018 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Jones (Post 12132821)

Or maybe?
I can't wait for this claim's justification.

Or maybe?

You want me to justify holding elections where the candidate with the most votes wins :confused: Or do you want me to show you evidence that people on the left would generally prefer that we do so?

WilliamSeger 3rd January 2018 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahhell (Post 12133021)
Keep in mind that anyone who runs for president is necessarily a narcissistic ******* who thinks and often says, "only I can fix it".

No, you must think that "narcissistic" just means "big ego." That's not really what narcissistic personality disorder means. There's a tiny little man trying to hide inside that huge but fragile ego bubble, living in constant fear that his smallness and unworthiness will be exposed, and who lashes out when it is. And comparing Trump to any other candidate or president indicates a serious state of denial.

Roger Ramjets 3rd January 2018 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyr_13 (Post 12132394)
So when you say that it's disingenuous to claim the ballot results from California represented an accurate or meaningful count of support, why do you still believe...

You misunderstand. It has nothing to do with 'belief', it's just pure partisanship. Any argument that gains a point for your side - no matter how specious - is good. And any counterargument - no matter how valid - is to be derided, misrepresented or ignored.

That's how the game is played. But the rules are not fixed, they will be changed without notice whenever it becomes obvious that you are losing. Because winning is the only thing that matters!

The Big Dog 3rd January 2018 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger (Post 12133069)
No, you must think that "narcissistic" just means "big ego." That's not really what narcissistic personality disorder means. There's a tiny little man trying to hide inside that huge but fragile ego bubble, living in constant fear that his smallness and unworthiness will be exposed, and who lashes out when it is.

Al Franken packed a lot of harassment into a 5 foot 6 inch tall frame.

Good riddance to bad rubbish

mgidm86 3rd January 2018 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12132369)
There was no popular vote. The two-party dominance and the EC system mean that a lot of voters don't have a lot of motivation to go to the polls for national elections. I voted in California last year. I'm a conservative: how much relevance did my vote have, out side of local ballot issues? Why would I even go to the polls? How does the "popular vote" narrative on the left account for this confounding factor?

There weren't even any local issues that really mattered to me. I voted anyway, because it amused me to do so, but it's disingenuous to claim that the ballot results from California represented an accurate or meaningful count of support for either presidential candidate. "More people wanted Hillary" is a Just So Story, invented by grasping at an artifact of the US electoral system.

I voted for Trump because I knew (here in Cali) that my vote would essentially go to Hillary anyways. I could never vote for her, not even now.

If it were a popular vote I would have abstained, so that wouldn't have helped Trump. I assume that some Trump supporters in Cali did not bother voting but I have no way of knowing.

Anyways, b-bye Stuart Smalley.

WilliamSeger 3rd January 2018 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12133378)
Al Franken packed a lot of harassment into a 5 foot 6 inch tall frame.

Good riddance to bad rubbish

No, he is a good man and was a good senator, and slander by your lot is a badge of honor.

The Big Dog 3rd January 2018 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger (Post 12133460)
No, he is a good man and was a good senator, and slander by your lot is a badge of honor.

'slander by your lot." What "lot" is that exactly?

The women he demeaned throughout the years that ended up with him resigning in disgrace?

He was a tiny man with a grope fetish who treated women like ****, end of story.

Cleon 3rd January 2018 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12133467)
'slander by your lot." What "lot" is that exactly?

The women he demeaned throughout the years that ended up with him resigning in disgrace?

He was a tiny man with a grope fetish who treated women like ****, end of story.

Are we talking about Franken or Trump at this point?

Your blatantly partisan selective outrage is amusing, I'll give you that.

TheL8Elvis 3rd January 2018 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cleon (Post 12133478)
Are we talking about Franken or Trump at this point?

Your blatantly partisan selective outrage is amusing, I'll give you that.

Sorry, it's not even amusing at this point.

Just tedious.

The Big Dog 3rd January 2018 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cleon (Post 12133478)
Are we talking about Franken or Trump at this point?

Your blatantly partisan selective outrage is amusing, I'll give you that.

Trump?

Thread title:

"Senator Al Franken Kissed and Groped Me Without My Consent, And There’s Nothing Funny...."

Dr. Keith 3rd January 2018 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis (Post 12133484)
Sorry, it's not even amusing at this point.

Just tedious.

Tedius is such a strong word. I like to refer to it as "classic". Something predictable that can be comforting even if not that substantial.

The Big Dog 3rd January 2018 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith (Post 12133646)
Tedius is such a strong word. I like to refer to it as "classic". Something predictable that can be comforting even if not that substantial.

Discussing issues in the appropriate thread is indeed classy.

Lurch 3rd January 2018 06:54 PM

Ya know, I was sexually assaulted several times in my late teens, when I was still a virgin. An acquaintance of the family, a couple years older than me, was notorious for her 'looseness'. She got around--a LOT--and the various sores and other skin blemishes I naively thought to be the manifestations of various and sundry STDs. And that she smoked was only another factor that rendered her as distasteful.

For some reason she got it into her head that my refusal to yield to her less than subtle 'advances' was the issuance of a challenge. She'd chase me down in the house and occasionally corner me. I was a scrawny beanpole in those days, all ribs, kneecaps and shoulder blades. She was of stout stock, and the combination of her strength and my desire to not hurt her meant it was tough to keep her hands from worming their way down into my pants. But I'd struggle free successfully enough before she got to grips, if you know what I mean.

Late one night I was walking her home, because she'd expressed some worry about safety. Part of the way along she suddenly grabbed me and planted a sloppy, tongue-jamming kiss, all cigarette ashtray like. Geez, I can still so easily recall the ghastly experience, which was back in '80 or '81. I still did the honorable thing and walked her the crest of the way home.

That was the last time she got near enough to touch me again...

By today's definition these acts constitute sexual assault, because I made it abundantly clear there was no interest in reciprocation from me. Even though I was a hormone-addled 18 year old virgin who would have welcomed the attention of a more appealing girl, the pawing and more by such a revolting creature was unsettling. Do I moan about it, and demand redress? Naw, it's far behind me, and thankfully I didn't contract some nasty disease.

Franken's actions, as I view them in the light of some experience, hardly constitute acts that demand the termination of his career. The USNO kiss is the worst that I'm aware of, but it was after all in the context of a practice for a skit, not some complete surprise 'attack' like the one I endured. And hands that might slide a little low down on a hip (over clothing) constitutes a soul-shattering violation?

I still respect Franken, in no small measure for his instinct to immediately acknowledge the complaints and offer himself unreservedly to an ethics investigation, and for not denying and attacking the accusers and invoking his godly ways.

A person (man or women) can be given to acting somewhat on impulse when attracted to someone without it making them a monster. I would have liked to see what an ethics investigation would have returned.

applecorped 3rd January 2018 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurch (Post 12133848)
Ya know, I was sexually assaulted several times in my late teens, when I was still a virgin. An acquaintance of the family, a couple years older than me, was notorious for her 'looseness'. She got around--a LOT--and the various sores and other skin blemishes I naively thought to be the manifestations of various and sundry STDs. And that she smoked was only another factor that rendered her as distasteful.

For some reason she got it into her head that my refusal to yield to her less than subtle 'advances' was the issuance of a challenge. She'd chase me down in the house and occasionally corner me. I was a scrawny beanpole in those days, all ribs, kneecaps and shoulder blades. She was of stout stock, and the combination of her strength and my desire to not hurt her meant it was tough to keep her hands from worming their way down into my pants. But I'd struggle free successfully enough before she got to grips, if you know what I mean.

Late one night I was walking her home, because she'd expressed some worry about safety. Part of the way along she suddenly grabbed me and planted a sloppy, tongue-jamming kiss, all cigarette ashtray like. Geez, I can still so easily recall the ghastly experience, which was back in '80 or '81. I still did the honorable thing and walked her the crest of the way home.

That was the last time she got near enough to touch me again...

By today's definition these acts constitute sexual assault, because I made it abundantly clear there was no interest in reciprocation from me. Even though I was a hormone-addled 18 year old virgin who would have welcomed the attention of a more appealing girl, the pawing and more by such a revolting creature was unsettling. Do I moan about it, and demand redress? Naw, it's far behind me, and thankfully I didn't contract some nasty disease.

Franken's actions, as I view them in the light of some experience, hardly constitute acts that demand the termination of his career. The USNO kiss is the worst that I'm aware of, but it was after all in the context of a practice for a skit, not some complete surprise 'attack' like the one I endured. And hands that might slide a little low down on a hip (over clothing) constitutes a soul-shattering violation?

I still respect Franken, in no small measure for his instinct to immediately acknowledge the complaints and offer himself unreservedly to an ethics investigation, and for not denying and attacking the accusers and invoking his godly ways.

A person (man or women) can be given to acting somewhat on impulse when attracted to someone without it making them a monster. I would have liked to see what an ethics investigation would have returned.


That's some fine excuse-making

Regnad Kcin 3rd January 2018 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by applecorped (Post 12133870)
That's some fine excuse-making

That’s some fine point-missing.

The Big Dog 3rd January 2018 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12133910)
That’s some fine point-missing.

There was a point missed but it might not be the person you are thinking of.

Foolmewunz 3rd January 2018 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12133919)
There was a point missed but it might not be the person you are thinking of.

That's some fine wagon-circling.

(Yet, neither of you choose to address the very cogent point made by Lurch. Color me surprised.)

The Big Dog 4th January 2018 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz (Post 12133928)
That's some fine wagon-circling.

(Yet, neither of you choose to address the very cogent point made by Lurch. Color me surprised.)

A male "who would have welcomed the attention of a more appealing girl, the pawing and more by such a revolting creature was unsettling" saying he had it worse from a "loose" "revolting" woman than did numerous women had from a powerful man is a "cogent" point?

Why how dare those women moan about it, they were not a loose cigarette smoking slut like our correspondent had to endure, and all without "moaning" about it you see! Those women ought to zip their lips because Al Franken is one of the good ones!

How unbelievably ludicrous can you get?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:12 PM.

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