George H.W. Bush. RIP

[Ace Nova]

2 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

So, by your own logic, when assessing someone who is accused of sexual assault, regardless of age etc, it should factor heavily in our judgement that he is a human being and, as such, unlikely to be a sex crime because, statistically, the vast majority ain't like that?  because that is more or less what you were doing with the Bush argument.

It would depend on the circumstances.  In the Bush case (with him being in a wheel chair), I could see him not reaching high enough on her back and hitting her butt by mistake.  You don't think that's possible?

 

Edited December 7, 2018 by Kasanova King

[Len Cnut]

11 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

It would depend on the circumstances.  In the Bush case (with him being in a wheel chair), I could see him not reaching high enough on her back and hitting her butt by mistake.  You don't think that's possible?

 

Its possible, sure.  Likely though, when contextualised with how the rest of the scene allegedly played out, bearing in mind the other allegations?  That I'd struggle to answer because, despite of how any of it looks, I don't believe I have the right to pass judgement on a man on something as serious as this without truly knowing...but the stated facts and sources of the case and so forth do not paint a very flattering picture of Mr Bush. 

Edited December 7, 2018 by Len Cnut

[Ace Nova]

5 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Its possible, sure.  Likely though, when contextualised with how the rest of the scene allegedly played out, bearing in mind the other allegations?  That I'd struggle to answer because, despite of how any of it looks, I don't believe I have the right to pass judgement on a man on something as serious as this without truly knowing...but the stated facts and sources of the case and so forth do not paint a very flattering picture of Mr Bush. 

That's fair enough and I'm fine with someone stating what you just said.  (We may not have the same opinion and that's ok)

What I have issues with is someone stating that it was (without a doubt) sexual assault and in the same post comparing it to what Trump has been accused of.  (Not you, btw).

 

 

[soon]

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

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

I clearly contextualized it as a grope. The rest of the noise to the contrary is silliness.

I didnt compare presidents actions, I simply highlighted a pattern of behaviou in those who defend them all for their various predatorial behaviours.

[Len Cnut]

I remember arguing in a similar vein with classicrawker on here, quite extensively and quite a while back about Clinton and his particular accusations and how, the gist of my argument was, that the president should be an exemplary human being and the same rationale that applies for your average joe (i.e. oh he's just a bit of perv) does not apply with the president because of the nature of the job.

A lot of people don't have a leg to stand on now with Trump because there was a great deal of that 'a president shouldn't be judged for getting his dick sucked' being thrown around back then so now I don't see how those same people can criticise Trump for his sad 'grab em by the pussy' comments.  It could be argued that the way Clintons judgement panned out was like a lowering of the bar.  If these things aren't dealt with then it sets a prescedent. 

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

3 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

I don't even know what that means if I'm honest, I should probably look it up

You did not say most. 

You later started to say most, along with a variety of other adjustments but to begin with you were not saying most, which is why the statement seemed so strange and objectionable, we can only go by what you say, you see.

Well, since his wife passed away some months ago, and he was still  grieving, I'm sure sex was the last thing on his mind.

Watching George and his wife you could just see and feel their love. Losing someone that close to you is such a hard loss to get through. I'm not surprised that he passed this close to her. I don't think he could or wanted to live without her. That kind of love is very rare indeed.

[Len Cnut]

Or grieve in different ways as the counsellor always says  

[SoulMonster]

57 minutes ago, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

I'm not surprised that he passed this close to her. I don't think he could or wanted to live without her. That kind of love is very rare indeed.

I don't think it is rare at all. I think kit is common that many really old people want to die when their spouse dies. Both because they loved him/her dearly (which isn't so rare), but also because at that age people don't tend to have so much else in their lives so when they are left alone they have nothing much more to live for. 

EDIT: I looked it up, it is called the "widowhood effect" and it is not uncommon.

Edited December 7, 2018 by SoulMonster

[Dazey]

5 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

http://www.city-data.com/so/so-Tampa-Florida.html

OK, so we have 82 yr old Richard Rider

80 yr old Sixto Santiago

70 yr old Michael Jarbo

80 yr old Paul Nidasio

And on it goes, you can go through the whole list if you like...and thats just in the Tampa area.

Tampa by name .....  

[soon]

'Cause it's just you against your tattered libido, the bank and the mortician forever, man.

[OmarBradley]

13 hours 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.  

 

12 hours ago, Kasanova King said:

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.

His intent may not have been sexual, but he absolutely intended on touching that woman's rear. 

"“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."

Admission of intent is right there in the statement. There's also an admission that he on multiple occasions has touched women's rears in similar circumstances (unwarranted and during non-sexual encounters). He "pats women's rears" to make them feel more at ease, which is an asinine explanation that raises more questions than it answers: Why are these women not at ease to begin with? Why doesn't he pat men's rears to make them feel more at ease? Are men naturally more at ease than women thus resulting in no need to pat their rears?

12 hours ago, Lio said:

1. No one has ever put a hand on a woman's rear unintentionally (unless they take their hand back straight away).

2. It is never okay to put your hand on a woman's rear unless you're romantically involved with her. A woman should never have to tell anyone to please remove their hand. It goes without saying you can't do that. Plus, it often involves a man who is in a power position. I wouldn't like having to tell the president to keep his hands off me. No woman should be forced in a situation like that.

Would you like it if another guy would 'unintentionally' put his hand on your gf's/wife's/daughter's rear? I don't think so. So that proves it's not like: oh, my hand just wandered off without me realizing it. Every man knows full well it's not completely innocent.Or the other way around, would you like being groped by the ass by a woman, let's say by Hillary Clinton? (Before you start off dreaming about some hot girl grabbing your ass )

Touching someone's rear is nowhere near rape, of course, but it still is not okay, and I'm sure Bush sr was a dirty old man, and has been for a very long time.

Thank you. Helps to have a female voice when men are arguing about what is and what isn't appropriate touching of the female body.

13 hours 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?

11 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

I remember arguing in a similar vein with classicrawker on here, quite extensively and quite a while back about Clinton and his particular accusations and how, the gist of my argument was, that the president should be an exemplary human being and the same rationale that applies for your average joe (i.e. oh he's just a bit of perv) does not apply with the president because of the nature of the job.

A lot of people don't have a leg to stand on now with Trump because there was a great deal of that 'a president shouldn't be judged for getting his dick sucked' being thrown around back then so now I don't see how those same people can criticise Trump for his sad 'grab em by the pussy' comments.  It could be argued that the way Clintons judgement panned out was like a lowering of the bar.  If these things aren't dealt with then it sets a prescedent. 

There are many political criticisms of Trump. Many. Seriously, MANY. The criticisms on his character are valid and should not be abandoned just because (in your opinion) "deep down, no one cares." I agree that some of his boisterousness acts a diversion, but don't worry, we're not letting him off the hook for his crooked, misguided politics.

The unsuitability for the job has been explored multiple times. Psychiatrists broke their association's rules in publicly diagnosing him with narcissism. The unsuitability argument works just as well as any argument against Trump: it doesn't really change his supporters' views on him. That's the problem, his supporters are blinded by the reflection off his golden wig and deafened by his promises of "lock her up" and "economy good, Strong!"

He literally said he could walk into a NYC street and shoot someone, and he would still be massively popular. Tells you something about the man and his supporters eh?

Where is CR? Haven't seen him post in a bit.

I agree with your note of hypocrisy. Though what Clinton did was consensual, so that's a notable difference. I do think Clinton is a bit sleazy and conducted himself in a manner not concurrent with how a 20th/21st century president should act. The presidency is a position of immeasurable responsibility, if the person in the seat doesn't have the ability to refuse a blowjob in what's clearly an inappropriate situation, that's concerning. Not saying it makes him a bad politician or bad president, but it's still a bit concerning. 

Edited December 8, 2018 by OmarBradley

[killuridols]

Believing that sexual abuse is about sex is very ignorant. Healthy sexual people (most of us) do not need to force themselves onto others to obtain sexual gratification.

Sexual abuse is really about power and control. Sexual abusers enjoy putting their victims under their control to show them who's got the power.

In the case of this dinosaur Bush, he wanted to display his power by doing this to innocent women, whom knowing who this guy was, were already limited in their reaction. How do you tell a President, or even ex-President, that you are not comfortable with how they are touching you?

It takes an amount of courage that most men cannot ever imagine because they are hardly ever submitted to such pressure!

Touching a woman's rear is one of the most common forms of sexual abuse because most of time abusers can get away with it. It is a quick thing, sometimes not even the woman sees it coming, other people hardly ever notice and if the woman reacts offended, the abuser immediately says it did not happen or they turn it into "unintentional" touch.

It is so hard to prove that most victims opt to let it go. Plus, most people tend to not believe the women. How would a President touch you in an inappropriate way? He is the President, an honorable person, and you are just a woman (unstable, too sensitive, unreliable).

[Ace Nova]

10 hours ago, OmarBradley said:

 

 

 

 Why doesn't he pat men's rears to make them feel more at ease? Are men naturally more at ease than women thus resulting in no need to pat their rears?

 

I don't know but baseball players do it all the time....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So obviously it's not always a "sexual" thing to some folks.

 

Edited December 8, 2018 by Kasanova King

[SoulMonster]

On ‎07‎.‎12‎.‎2018 at 3:46 PM, soon said:

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

Again, did Bush admit to have "assaulted" someone or did he admit to have "patted someone's ass"?

[wasted]

51 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Again, did Bush admit to have "assaulted" someone or did he admit to have "patted someone's ass"?

I don’t know but he sure got a lot of people killed. 

Edited December 9, 2018 by wasted

[soon]

4 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Again, did Bush admit to have "assaulted" someone or did he admit to have "patted someone's ass"?

That is assault. You believe for someone to admit assault they have to use that specific word?

 

[SoulMonster]

49 minutes ago, soon said:

That is assault. You believe for someone to admit assault they have to use that specific word?

 

I believe there is a difference in saying, "Bush has admitted to sexual assault" and "Bush has admitted to patting someone's behind." And this has nothing to do with what constitutes sexual assault, but how people choose to phrase things. 

[soon]

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

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

 

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I believe there is a difference in saying, "Bush has admitted to sexual assault" and "Bush has admitted to patting someone's behind." And this has nothing to do with what constitutes sexual assault, but how people choose to phrase things. 

Well, I phrased it as a grope. And it is sexual assault. And he admitted to touching her butt. And you're still stewing about your flawed approach to a conversation that happened two days ago.

[SoulMonster]

34 minutes ago, soon said:

Well, I phrased it as a grope. And it is sexual assault. And he admitted to touching her butt. And you're still stewing about your flawed approach to a conversation that happened two days ago.

You didn't phrase it as a grope in the post that I responded to. In that post you claimed Bush had admitted to have sexually assaulted someone:

@soon: "But it was assault. And he acknowledged it even, lol."

Again, there is a difference between "Bush admitted to have sexually assaulted someone" and "Bush admitted to have patted someone's ass". Not only in what it implies of Bush (whether he acknowledges the gravitas of the act or whether he dismisses it as an innocent thing) but also in how it can be understood by readers (because most people will think of far worse acts when they read 'sexual assault' than "just" a grope). 

And I know you are smart enough to understand all this. 

[soon]

8 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

You didn't phrase it as a grope in the post that I responded to. In that post you claimed Bush had admitted to have sexually assaulted someone:

@soon: "But it was assault. And he acknowledged it even, lol."

Again, there is a difference between "Bush admitted to have sexually assaulted someone" and "Bush admitted to have patted someone's ass". Not only in what it implies of Bush (whether he acknowledges the gravitas of the act or whether he dismisses it as an innocent thing) but also in how it can be understood by readers (because most people will think of far worse acts when they read 'sexual assault' than "just" a grope). 

And I know you are smart enough to understand all this. 

Your wrong and this is boring.

[wasted]

Family of Secrets - Russ Baker. Read it. 

[SoulMonster]

47 minutes ago, soon said:

Your wrong and this is boring.

What am I wrong about? You being intelligent enough to understand the semantic differences between "I sexually assaulted her" and "I patted her behind"? 

[soon]

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

What am I wrong about? You being intelligent enough to understand the semantic differences between "I sexually assaulted her" and "I patted her behind"? 

Pour vous

... A cloud to yell at

[killuridols]

6 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

but also in how it can be understood by readers (because most people will think of far worse acts when they read 'sexual assault' than "just" a grope). 

For us women who have to go through this shit through a big portion of our lives, especially when we are very very young, what you AS A MAN consider an "innocent thing", "just a grope", it is a terrible thing for us.

Do you have any idea what is like to be a 12 years old girl and having someone touching your bottom just out of nowhere? You become terrified. You have no idea how to react. You can remain with that fear for days, weeks or months.

An adult woman might take it different but it always depends on the context and who does it. Having the President of the USA doing this to you must be something no woman would ever expect, hence the shock and disgust. Also the impotence of not being able to tell him anything for fear of being acussed, as we are always blamed for the misconduct of these perverted men.

Hopefully no woman in your life who you truly love have to go through this and if they do, I just hope that you have the decency to believe them, not minimize it, not blame it on them and do not side with the perverts.

[Len Cnut]

There is no such thing as just a grope.  If a grown man felt a childs bollocks, would that be 'just a grope' as well?  How about you just live your fuckin' life with the basic rule of thumb to keep your fuckin' hands to yourself like the rest of the sane population of the world do?  Because lets me clear about this, there is no murky water, no grey area, no substance behind the calls of 'oh its so confusing whats alright and not alright nowadays', no its fuckin' not and it never has been.  Keep your fuckin' hands to yourself unless invited and/or welcome and if you can't tell when you're welcome well then you're a fuckin' retard with serious social skills problems.  How about this, if you're ever confused err on the side of caution and keep your fuckin' hands to yourself.  If you're ever in a situation and you're thinking 'God, i really wanna feel this girls tits but I dunno whether she's up for it or not' just fuckin' keep em to yourself, quite frankly if you're subject to those kind of connundrums she probably doesn't want you to   But the thought you must never follow through on is the 'well I'll just cop a feel and see how she takes it', thems is naughty thoughts, naughty thoughts indeed.  

People should probably look up the definition of grope as well, its not the same as caress, or stroke or even feel, a grope is clumsy, often aggressive and an act associated with a lack of consent and this is the key shit here kids, consent...and if there ain't no consent well thats the definition of sexual assault, regardless of whether people get vision of sodomy or whatever when they hear the term 'sexual assault'.