Jump to content
Georgy Zhukov

George H.W. Bush. RIP

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I passed a girl once, and let my hand glide through her golden hair as I went past. Feeling the long strands slide between my fingers as the distance between us increased. Like liquid gold in my hands. A feeble attempt at making my feelings known. It was in kindergarden. 

Always knew you was a wrong un :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

You said 93 yr olds are not sexual in any way because they don't have a libido.  That would make it medically impossible surely?  And what on earth difference does it make that the vast majority aren't perverts, thats not anyones argument, that the vast majority are perverts or even sexually capable, your argument is just shrinking in its boldness to where its gone from elderly people not being sexual in any way to 'the vast majority aren't'.

Also, libido has nothing to do with ones ability to commit a sex crime.  You could have no nuts and no dick and still be able to commit a sex crime.  Whether you can do it or not just relates to follow through, just because someone is impotent or incapable does not mean they can't think about sex, its why impotence in men is famously such a frustrating thing that drives people to counselling and all sorts.

Again with your straw man arguments, Len. :facepalm:  

I said MOST.  as in probably over 99% And most probably aren't sexual because they don't have much of a libido.  Not all.  If you want to hang on to your argument that maybe 1% of elderly folks have perverted minds and are sexual predators, by all means do. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Oh, that's my opinion based on the circumstances.  No one can really know what was really going on in his mind.

Same here actually, in terms of whether he did it or not fuck knows, I was more interested in the arguments being presented on here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Oh, that's my opinion based on the circumstances.  No one can really know what was really going on in his mind.  I just highly doubt his intentions were "sexual" in nature.

 

I think most men here have a pretty vivid idea of what went through in his mind :lol:

I think it was deliberate, and I think he did it because he liked touching women's asses. And I don't think he considered it that bad. Unfortunately.

2 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Always knew you was a wrong un :lol:

At least wrong in hoping I would be getting anything.

Or even knowing what I was hoping to get. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Again with your straw man arguments, Len. :facepalm:  

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

Quote

I said MOST.  as in probably over 99% And most probably aren't sexual because they don't have much of a libido.  Not all.  If you want to hang on to your argument that maybe 1% of elderly folks have perverted minds and are sexual predators, by all means do. :lol:

You did not say most. 

Quote

Have you ever had a conversation with a 93 year-old disabled man?  They aren't "sexual" in any way, shape or form

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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 :lol:)

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.

1.  That's not really true.  I guarantee mistakes happen.  People are all different sizes, weights, forms, etc.  Someone could easily think their hand is on someone's lower back and possibly be touching their upper rear end and not know it.   Or the other person may not be comfortable with someone touching their lower back and they may consider it their upper "butt" while someone else just considers it their lower back, etc etc etc etc etc.

2. I agree with just about everything here.  Again, it's about "intent".

And yes, I've had both guys and girls go a little too low on my back/rear when it either came to a joke, a picture, etc etc...and I let them know it and it was over with. 

Edited by Kasanova King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

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

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.

:lol:

Seriously?  

Ok, to clarify.  99.9% ( or more ) of disabled elderly folks are (most likely) not perverts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

:lol:

Seriously?  

Ok, to clarify.  99.9% ( or more ) of disabled elderly folks are (most likely) not perverts.

 

Out of interest, what percentage of non-disabled young folk do you consider to be perverts?  I mean just with your offhand mathematics, I won't hold you to any of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

Out of interest, what percentage of non-disabled young folk do you consider to be perverts?  I mean just with your offhand mathematics, I won't hold you to any of it.

Probably slightly more because of a higher libido/sex drive etc.  Still a very low % compared to the overall population though.  No idea of the exact numbers or if it's factual...just an educated guess based on common sense.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

Probably slightly more because of a higher libido/sex drive etc.  Still a very low % compared to the overall population though.  No idea of the exact numbers or if it's factual...just an educated guess based on common sense.

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.

Edited by Len Cnut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Kasanova King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Len Cnut
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

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

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or grieve in different ways as the counsellor always says :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by SoulMonster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ..... :lol: 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :lol:)

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 by OmarBradley
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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....

 

Image result for baseball players patting rear

 

Image result for baseball players patting rear

 

Image result for baseball players patting rear

 

Image result for baseball players patting rear

 

Image result for baseball players patting rear

 

 

:lol:

 

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

 

Edited by Kasanova King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×