Len Cnut Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 8 minutes ago, soon said: But its a great way to measure his supporters morality and depth of though. Well we all knew they were wankers anyway, that don't take working out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 3 minutes ago, Len Cnut said: How could a source verify intention? If it contains a quote from the perpetrator where he admits his intentions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 8 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: If it contains a quote from the perpetrator where he admits his intentions? Ah, so there's meant to be a confession knocking about somewhere? He'd have to be some kind of stupid cunt to admit that shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 5 minutes ago, soon said: The info is in the link I posted 5 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!'. How could a source verify intention? 1 minute ago, SoulMonster said: If it contains a quote from the perpetrator where he admits his intentions? The only thing the source he posted did was verify the opposite, according to Bush's people.....from his link: “President Bush would never — under any circumstance — intentionally cause anyone distress, and he most sincerely apologizes if his attempt at humor offended Ms. Lind,” McGrath said in a statement, according to The Washington Post. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/26/george-h-w-bush-apologizes-groping-244195 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 8 minutes ago, Kasanova King said: The only thing the source he posted did was verify the opposite, according to Bush's people.....from his link: “President Bush would never — under any circumstance — intentionally cause anyone distress, and he most sincerely apologizes if his attempt at humor offended Ms. Lind,” McGrath said in a statement, according to The Washington Post. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/26/george-h-w-bush-apologizes-groping-244195 To play devils advocate for a second, that is a confession isn't it? Its admitted to touching her arse and calling it 'an attempt at humour'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Len Cnut said: To play devils advocate for a second, that is a confession isn't it? Its admitted to touching her arse and calling it 'an attempt at humour'. He did supposedly touch here rear, I don't think they've ever denied that. He was basically telling jokes and then patted the lady on her back...which ended up being her rear since he probably couldn't reach high enough to hit her back...the guy was in a wheel chair. It's about "intent". Either way, it wasn't "sexual"...that's the entire point. Edited December 7, 2018 by Kasanova King Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 2 minutes ago, Kasanova King said: He did supposedly touch here rear, I don't think they've ever denied that. He was basically telling jokes and then patted the lady on her back...which ended up being her rear since he probably couldn't reach high enough to hit her back...the guy was in a wheel chair. It's about "intent". Either way, it wasn't "sexual"...that's the entire point. As I stated above, he allegedly did similar things while still in Office: "But then the story changed. More women came forward describing incidents that took place before Bush was in a wheelchair and even while he was in office. One woman described a credible story dating back to 1992, when she says that Bush, then the president, put his hand on her rear end while taking a photograph at a reelection fundraiser. " [Same source as before] So it can't be all explained away as just the actions of a confused old man. Regardless, referring to this as "sexual assault" without any further context, and thus grouping him with violent rapists and the like, is a bit disingenuous and I am sure it is used deliberately to make it sound worse than it was. Just a way to attack him and throw more shade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 9 minutes ago, Kasanova King said: He did supposedly touch here rear, I don't think they've ever denied that. He was basically telling jokes and then patted the lady on her back...which ended up being her rear since he probably couldn't reach high enough to hit her back...the guy was in a wheel chair. Either way, it wasn't "sexual"...that's the entire point. It seems to me like a lot of very judicious use of language to cover up the fact that the ex prez is a dirty old man. So he did touch her rear, it wasn't welcome or invited...but its OK because...? 'on occasion he has patted womens rears in what he intended to be a good natured manner', so basically its not that he did it or not, its what his intent was in doing it, thats what should judge whether or not its a crime. Is that how shit works? I mean its either a crime or not right, you can't murder or rob or rape and say 'well, according to my intent it was a joke'. As for your saying it wasn't sexual, if it wasn't, as in sex was the furthest thing from the presidents mind at the time, it seems odd to be that the icing on the cake should be a dirty joke. Which, apparently, was also said to put them at ease. So you touch their arse, but thats OK cuz its not sexual because you're good natured...but you cap it off with a dirty joke anyway. Honestly this all looks kinda mealy-mouthed. His hand would fall to their 'lower waist', what is the lower waist, I didn't know the waist was that big a part of the human body that it had to be divided into uppers and lowers and centrals, what is a lower waist, can somebody point that part of the body out to me. And while you're about it, who are these people with hands so small that they can be placed on the lower or upper part of a waist 11 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: As I stated above, he allegedly did similar things while still in Office: "But then the story changed. More women came forward describing incidents that took place before Bush was in a wheelchair and even while he was in office. One woman described a credible story dating back to 1992, when she says that Bush, then the president, put his hand on her rear end while taking a photograph at a reelection fundraiser. " [Same source as before] So it can't be all explained away as just the actions of a confused old man. Regardless, referring to this as "sexual assault" without any further context, and thus grouping him with violent rapists and the like, is a bit disingenuous and I am sure it is used deliberately to make it sound worse than it was. Just a way to attack him and throw more shade. Well surely if you couple the thing with a history of similar allegations as you stated then it does cast a different light on it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: As I stated above, he allegedly did similar things while still in Office: "But then the story changed. More women came forward describing incidents that took place before Bush was in a wheelchair and even while he was in office. One woman described a credible story dating back to 1992, when she says that Bush, then the president, put his hand on her rear end while taking a photograph at a reelection fundraiser. " [Same source as before] So it can't be all explained away as just the actions of a confused old man. Regardless, referring to this as "sexual assault" without any further context, and thus grouping him with violent rapists and the like, is a bit disingenuous and I am sure it is used deliberately to make it sound worse than it was. Just a way to attack him and throw more shade. I agree. There's a difference between touching someone's rear during a photograph (which let's be frank, could very well be unintentional...we don't know that either way). Vs. what Trump has been accused of. I'm sure we've all taken photos with groups of people and wondered if someone's hands were in the proper places, etc etc. It happens. Now if a person tells that person to put there hands in a different place and that person refuses and keeps there hands there, then obviously that could be more serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 Quote Now if a person tells that person to put there hands in a different place and that person refuses and keeps there hands there, then obviously that could be more serious. That ain't how it works cochise, 'she didn't say stop' is not a defence. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 5 minutes ago, Len Cnut said: It seems to me like a lot of very judicious use of language to cover up the fact that the ex prez is a dirty old man. So he did touch her rear, it wasn't welcome or invited...but its OK because...? 'on occasion he has patted womens rears in what he intended to be a good natured manner', so basically its not that he did it or not, its what his intent was in doing it, thats what should judge whether or not its a crime. Is that how shit works? I mean its either a crime or not right, you can't murder or rob or rape and say 'well, according to my intent it was a joke'. As for your saying it wasn't sexual, if it wasn't, as in sex was the furthest thing from the presidents mind at the time, it seems odd to be that the icing on the cake should be a dirty joke. Which, apparently, was also said to put them at ease. So you touch their arse, but thats OK cuz its not sexual because you're good natured...but you cap it off with a dirty joke anyway. Honestly this all looks kinda mealy-mouthed. His hand would fall to their 'lower waist', what is the lower waist, I didn't know the waist was that big a part of the human body that it had to be divided into uppers and lowers and centrals, what is a lower waist, can somebody point that part of the body out to me. And while you're about it, who are these people with hands so small that they can be placed on the lower or upper part of a waist Well surely if you couple the thing with a history of similar allegations as you stated then it does cast a different light on it. Have you ever had a conversation with a 93 year-old disabled man? They aren't "sexual" in any way, shape or form...regardless what comes out of their mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 1 minute ago, Kasanova King said: I agree. There's a difference between touching someone's rear during a photograph (which let's be frank, could very well be unintentional...we don't know that either way). Vs. what Trump has been accused of. I'm sure we've all taken photos with groups of people and wondered if someone's hands were in the proper places, etc etc. It happens. Now if a person tells that person to put there hands in a different place and that person refuses and keeps there hands there, then obviously that could be more serious. Seems to me he probably did it intentionally. And that he probably didn't consider it that bad. It was different times back then. And he was the President. Not excusing it. Just what I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 Just now, Len Cnut said: That ain't how it works cochise, 'she didn't say stop' is not a defence. It is how it works. If a person doesn't know their hands are in the wrong place, it's exactly how it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 8 minutes ago, Kasanova King said: Have you ever had a conversation with a 93 year-old disabled man? They aren't "sexual" in any way, shape or form...regardless what comes out of their mouth. I haven't always asked their age but yeah and it don't matter that they can't get it up, old men don't think about sex, you're gonna struggle to argue this one out boss 8 minutes ago, Kasanova King said: It is how it works. If a person doesn't know their hands are in the wrong place, it's exactly how it works. Whaddya mean 'if a person doesn't know', how could you not know?! That is about as disturbing a notion as I've ever come across, these guys are qualified to be what amounts to the leader of the free world but they don't know where its OK to put their hands on someone, THATS a desicion that they struggle with? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 Just now, Len Cnut said: I haven't always asked their age but yeah and it don't matter that they can't get it up, old men don't think about sex, you're gonna struggle to argue this one out boss Of course they can "think" or "joke" about it. It still isn't "sexual". That man isn't getting any sort of "sexual gratification" from telling dirty jokes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 8 minutes ago, Kasanova King said: Of course they can "think" or "joke" about it. It still isn't "sexual". That man isn't getting any sort of "sexual gratification" from telling dirty jokes. Why? Because they can't function sexually, is that your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 2 minutes ago, Len Cnut said: I haven't always asked their age but yeah and it don't matter that they can't get it up, old men don't think about sex, you're gonna struggle to argue this one out boss Whaddya mean 'if a person doesn't know', how could you not know?! That is about as disturbing a notion as I've ever come across, these guys are qualified to be what amounts to the leader of the free world but they don't know where its OK to put their hands on someone, THATS a desicion that they struggle with? A 93 year-old guy that's in a wheel chair? Yeah, I could see him placing his hands too "low" on a person's back and not really knowing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 8 minutes ago, Kasanova King said: A 93 year-old guy that's in a wheel chair? Yeah, I could see him placing his hands too "low" on a person's back and not really knowing it. And then, coincidentally, capping it off with a dirty joke, designed to put the other at ease? Hmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soon Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 And now disabled people "arent sexual in any way shape or form" or is that just if they're old? In which case then why mention disability? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 1 minute ago, Len Cnut said: Why? Because they can't function sexually, is that your point? It's about libido. Disabled people at that age won't typically get sexual gratification from things like that. They're basically just telling jokes and trying to be funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 8 minutes ago, Kasanova King said: It's about libido. Disabled people at that age won't typically get sexual gratification from things like that. They're basically just telling jokes and trying to be funny. OK so by that rationale, whether or not an act is sexual is governed by the person committing the acts ability to feel sexually gratified and if they can't function sexually then it can't be a sex crime? So...if someones impotent then can't be convicted of sexual assault cuz they can't get off? They could shove three fingers up some girl and it can't be sexual assault cuz he's impotent, neutered, no libido. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 Just now, soon said: And now disabled people "arent sexual in any way shape or form" or is that just if they're old? In which case then why mention disability? The combination of being 93 years old and being disabled. I don't have the statistics but I would take an educated guess and say that the majority of disabled folks in their 90's aren't very "sexual". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 (edited) I guess he's one year off 93 so it must be OK for him its that 93rd birthday thats the killer man, your nuts just shut right off. Edited December 7, 2018 by Len Cnut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 Just now, Len Cnut said: OK so by that rationale, whether or not an act is sexual is governed by the person committing the acts ability to feel sexually gratified and if they can't function sexually then it can't be a sex crime? So...if someones impotent then can't be convicted of sexual assault cuz they can't get off? They could shove three fingers up some girl and it can't be sexual assault cuz he's impotent, neutered, no libido. It's about intent. I don't think Bush's "intent" was sexual in nature. Not when he was 93 and in a wheel chair. And of course someone who's impotent can commit sex crimes. Apples & Oranges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 8 minutes ago, Kasanova King said: And of course someone who's impotent can commit sex crimes. Apples & Oranges. I thought it was about libido? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts