George H.W. Bush. RIP

[DieselDaisy]

It is actually historically impossible. 

[cineater]

Sorry, sorry.  I was commenting on the kids today, not the men and women in our military.  Nothing but respect for the people who put their lives on the line to protect the rest of our asses.  That's serious shit.

[DieselDaisy]

There is a big difference between professional armies such as the United States's army today, made up of career soldiers, and the conscription armies of the two world wars. 

[Sosso]

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/trump-on-the-fringes-of-presidents-group-at-george-hw-bush-s-funeral-20181206-p50kht.html

[soon]

On 12/1/2018 at 1:04 PM, soon said:

Well, looks like he's groped his last women.

 

On 12/5/2018 at 4:54 PM, Kasanova King said:

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Signed into law by President George H. W. Bush onJuly 26, 1990

 

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12101) is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on disability. It affords similar protections against discrimination to Americans with disabilities as the Civil Rights Act of 1964,[1] which made discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, and other characteristics illegal. In addition, unlike the Civil Rights Act, the ADA also requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities, and imposes accessibility requirements on public accommodations.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990

 

 

 

Whats your point?

[Ace Nova]

48 minutes ago, soon said:

 

Whats your point?

People in a thread dedicated to a public figure that has passed can tend to look past the good they have done.  In this case, Bush actually did quite a bit of good while president.

 

[soon]

9 hours ago, Kasanova King said:

People in a thread dedicated to a public figure that has passed can tend to look past the good they have done.  In this case, Bush actually did quite a bit of good while president.

 

I wasnt looking passed anything. I stated a fact. Why did you post to me? To defend against his sexual assaults? So clearly you are trying to look passed something.

Heres one of his official apologies where his team attempts to blame disability for his sexual assault. Of course having a disability doesn't relate in any way to sexually assaulting someone. Yeah, amazing guy. Such an ally. 

“At age 93, President Bush has been confined to a wheelchair for roughly five years, so his arm falls on the lower waist of people with whom he takes pictures,” McGrath said. “To try to put people at ease, the president routinely tells the same joke — and on occasion, he has patted women’s rears in what he intended to be a good-natured manner. Some have seen it as innocent; others clearly view it as inappropriate. To anyone he has offended, President Bush apologizes most sincerely.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/26/george-h-w-bush-apologizes-groping-244195

Edited December 7, 2018 by soon

[Ace Nova]

27 minutes ago, soon said:

I wasnt looking passed anything. I stated a fact. Why did you post to me? To defend against his sexual assaults? So clearly you are trying to look passed something.

Heres one of his official apologies where his team attempts to blame disability for his sexual assault. Of course having a disability does relate in any way to sexually assaulting someone. Yeah, amazing guy. Such an ally. 

“At age 93, President Bush has been confined to a wheelchair for roughly five years, so his arm falls on the lower waist of people with whom he takes pictures,” McGrath said. “To try to put people at ease, the president routinely tells the same joke — and on occasion, he has patted women’s rears in what he intended to be a good-natured manner. Some have seen it as innocent; others clearly view it as inappropriate. To anyone he has offended, President Bush apologizes most sincerely.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/26/george-h-w-bush-apologizes-groping-244195

Sorry that wasn't "sexual assault".  Anyone who thinks it was needs to have their head examined.  A 93 year-old man who can barely function probably has no idea where the heck his hands are in situations like that.    Give me a f'n break.  

 

 

[soon]

15 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Sorry that wasn't "sexual assault".  Anyone who thinks it was needs to have their head examined.  A 93 year-old man who can barely function probably has no idea where the heck his hands are in situations like that.    Give me a f'n break.  

 

 

I understand that you get confused easily. But it was assault. And he acknowledged it even, lol.

These issues are apparently lost on you since you voted Trump in after a campaign of sexual misconduct issues in the news. And mocking the disabled in front of the entire world. Good job!

 

 

Edited December 7, 2018 by soon

[Ace Nova]

22 minutes ago, soon said:

I understand that you get confused easily. But it was assault. And he acknowledged it even, lol.

These issues are apparently lost on you since you voted Trump in after a campaign of sexual misconduct issues in the news. And mocking the disabled in front of the entire world. Good job!

 

 

The only one confused here is you.  Wrong on everything you just said.  But don't let facts get in the way of your fantasy, carry on.  

 

 

 

[SoulMonster]

23 minutes ago, soon said:

I understand that you get confused easily. But it was assault. And he acknowledged it even, lol.

Bush senior acknowledged he had "sexually assaulted anyone"!? Or Bush acknowledged he had "good-naturedly patted someone's behind"? Because I am sure that although the latter can be considered a form of "sexual assault" to some people -- and not wanting to trivialize a little bit of unwelcomed spanking -- 'sexual assaults' in most minds are much more senior offenses.

And unsolicited lightly patting someone's rear -- again, although bad enough in itself -- is not really at the level of what Trump has been accused of. Is it? 

And what exactly is KK confused about? You seem to disagree about whether Bush' actions should be considered "sexual assault", that is hardly a misunderstanding on KK's part, just a difference of opinion which shouldn't i itself be reason for ridiculing him.

[soon]

5 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

The only one confused here is you.  Wrong on everything you just said.  But don't let facts get in the way of your fantasy, carry on.  

 

 

 

 

Just now, SoulMonster said:

Bush senior acknowledged he had "sexually assaulted anyone"!? Or Bush acknowledged he had "good-naturedly patted someone's behind"? Because I am sure that although the latter can be considered a form of "sexual assault" to some people -- and not wanting to trivialize a little bit of unwelcomed spanking -- 'sexual assaults' in most minds are much more senior offenses.

And unsolicited lightly patting someone's rear -- again, although bad enough in itself -- is not really at the level of what Trump has been accused of. Is it? 

And what exactly is KK confused about? You seem to disagree about whether Bush' actions should be considered "sexual assault", that is hardly a misunderstanding on KK's part, just a difference of opinion which shouldn't i itself be reason for ridiculing him.

Luckily for civilization, neither of you get to redefine sexual assault.

[Len Cnut]

55 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Sorry that wasn't "sexual assault".  Anyone who thinks it was needs to have their head examined.  A 93 year-old man who can barely function probably has no idea where the heck his hands are in situations like that.    Give me a f'n break.  

 

 

Can i touch your arse?   Oh go on, they're proper soft, we've been using Fairy Liquid in my house since the 1980s!

[Ace Nova]

Just now, soon said:

 

Luckily for civilization, neither of you get to redefine sexual assault.

Luckily for civilization, no one in their right mind would consider that sexual assault, given the circumstances.

Could you imagine living in a world where a disabled person touches someone's rear by mistake or unknowingly and is then charged with sexual assault?  I couldn't.  

 

 

 

 

[Ace Nova]

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

Can i touch your arse?   Oh go on, they're proper soft, we've been using Fairy Liquid in my house since the 1980s!

I'm pretty sure the last thing on a 93 year-old disabled man's mind (who's libido probably died 20 years earlier) is trying to intentionally touch anyone's ass.  

[soon]

2 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Luckily for civilization, no one in their right mind would consider that sexual assault, given the circumstances.

Could you imagine living in a world where a disabled person touches someone's rear by mistake or unknowingly and is then charged with sexual assault?  I couldn't.  

 

 

 

 

Now youve gotten to straight up lying. He intentionally touched her bum.

But I get it, your fine with it. And you were fine with Trumps mocking the disabled. And you started off virtue signalling to defend Bush assault and now you are just lying about the facts. And of course, a thinking person knows, disability has nothing to do with sexual assaulting someone.

[Len Cnut]

11 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

I'm pretty sure the last thing on a 93 year-old disabled man's mind (who's libido probably died 20 years earlier) is trying to intentionally touch anyone's ass.  

When you're 93 everything on your mind is the last thing

[SoulMonster]

7 minutes ago, soon said:

 

Luckily for civilization, neither of you get to redefine sexual assault.

I haven't tried to redefine "sexual assault," and thinking I have misses my point entirely and, quite frankly, implies you are a bit confused I was pointing out that there are various forms of "sexual assault" and that by referring to Bush's actions as "sexual assaults" with no further details only serves to make them seem more grave then they likely were. It is disingenuous. It is like cherry-picking words.

And again, pretending that what Bush is accused of doing is identical to what Trump is accused of doing, that there is some moral equivalency there, is wrong. Unless, of course, every act of "sexual assault" is equally bad.

In my opinion, this deflating of the term which takes away nuances in forms of assault and sexism, is a disservice to victims of sexual assault. You seem to use the term purely for political gain. To score a discussion point.

[Ace Nova]

8 minutes ago, soon said:

Now youve gotten to straight up lying. He intentionally touched her bum.

But I get it, your fine with it. And you were fine with Trumps mocking the disabled. And you started off virtue signalling to defend Bush assault and now you are just lying about the facts. And of course, a thinking person knows, disability has nothing to do with sexual assaulting someone.

I'm not sure if you're on hallucinogens today or that new bud you got has gotten you a little too high but please show a source that states Bush intentionally groped that woman's rear.  FIND ONE SINGLE, VALID SOURCE.  

You stated that I voted for Trump....

 

 

You stated that I was ok with Trump mocking the disabled....

 

 

You've repeatedly said Bush admitted to intentionally groping a woman's rear....

 

 

You're just full of all kinds of poop today.  Take a breather and come back down to reality, please.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2018 by Kasanova King

[soon]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

I haven't tried to redefine "sexual assault," and thinking I have misses my point entirely and, quite frankly, implies you are a bit confused I was pointing out that there are various forms of "sexual assault" and that by referring to Bush's actions as "sexual assaults" with no further details only serves to make them seem more grave then they likely were. It is disingenuous. It is like cherry-picking words.

And again, pretending that what Bush is accused of doing is identical to what Trump is accused of doing, that there is some moral equivalency there, is wrong. Unless, of course, every act of "sexual assault" is equally bad.

In my opinion, this deflating of the term which takes away nuances in forms of assault and sexism, is a disservice to victims of sexual assault. You seem to use the term purely for political gain. To score a discussion point.

Okay, but you are wrong. Because you have missed my points.

[SoulMonster]

12 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Luckily for civilization, no one in their right mind would consider that sexual assault, given the circumstances.

Could you imagine living in a world where a disabled person touches someone's rear by mistake or unknowingly and is then charged with sexual assault?  I couldn't.  

Bush is also accused of similar offenses before he got in a wheelchair, even back when he was in Office.

[soon]

1 minute ago, Kasanova King said:

I'm not sure if you're on hallucinogenics today or that new bud you got has gotten you a little too high but please show a source that states Bush intentionally groped that woman's rear.  FIND ONE SINGLE, VALID SOURCE.  

You stated that I voted for Trump....

 

 

You stated that I was ok with Trump mocking the disabled....

 

 

You've repeatedly said Bush admitted to intentionally groping a woman's rear....

 

 

You're just full of all kinds of poop today.  Take a breather and come back down to reality, please.

 

 

 

 

 

The info is in the link I posted

[Len Cnut]

12 minutes ago, soon said:

Now youve gotten to straight up lying. He intentionally touched her bum.

But I get it, your fine with it. And you were fine with Trumps mocking the disabled. And you started off virtue signalling to defend Bush assault and now you are just lying about the facts. And of course, a thinking person knows, disability has nothing to do with sexual assaulting someone.

I think there's a problem of approach in Trump criticism, too much is made of mocking the disabled and 'grab em by the pussy', if it was kept political and kept within the confines of what he does and how he does it and why its fucked up that shit'd be a lot more effective.  Not that they aren't worthy criticisms its just no ones gonna listen about that shit cuz deep down, no one cares.  Its trivial shit in terms of it having an effect on his position. 

When people look at presidents nowadays it doesn't matter how moral or immoral they are, its more to do with whether they think, despite their immorality, that the person can do the job and that I think would be a more effective way to approach Trump criticism, his unsuitability to carry out the job, a department in which I'm led to believe there is any number of valid criticisms of him cuz people look at that shit and go 'awww, he has the blue collar common touch!'.

Quote

a source that states Bush intentionally groped that woman's rear

How could a source verify intention?

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, soon said:

Okay, but you are wrong. Because you have missed my points.

So Bush admitted to have sexually assaulted someone?

1 minute ago, soon said:

The info is in the link I posted

You posted a link where it states what KK voted?

[soon]

3 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I think there's a problem of approach in Trump criticism, too much is made of mocking the disabled and 'grab em by the pussy', if it was kept political and kept within the confines of what he does and how he does it and why its fucked up that shit'd be a lot more effective.  Not that they aren't worthy criticisms its just no ones gonna listen about that shit cuz deep down, no one cares.  Its trivial shit in terms of it having an effect on his position. 

When people look at presidents nowadays it doesn't matter how moral or immoral they are, its more to do with whether they think, despite their immorality, that the person can do the job and that I think would be a more effective way to approach Trump criticism, his unsuitability to carry out the job, a department in which I'm led to believe there is any number of valid criticisms of him cuz people look at that shit and go 'awww, he has the blue collar common touch!'.

But its a great way to measure his supporters morality and depth of thought.

Edited December 7, 2018 by soon