harassment that it refused to have with Slick Willy in the 90’s. Both Slick and Orangetan are serial women predators and abusers. The fact that the libs and the country refused to do anything about Slick helped allow Orange to survive AH, and we now have our second predator in 4 presidencies in the Oval Office. And all of these subsidiary clowns like Moore, Franken, and Weinstein were are also pulling their shit in the meantime and prospering.
Let’s get it all out; Willie, Orange and the rest, and end this BS. Should have done it in the 90’s. Still time to clean it up.
(no message)
the whole world of human sexuality is driven by unconscious forces that no one wants to admit exist.
Anita Hill. But that blew over.
Then Raging Bill.
Now Trump has essentially sickened every harassed woman so much that they are all coming forward. I bet there are lots of nervous harrassers out there, hoping the next shoe does not fall on them.
on women is well known.
Link: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/02/9-times-joe-biden-whispered-in-womens-ears.html
Obviously lots of predators on both sides.
Franken should resign, and Moore should drop out of the race....and obviously the self-proclaimed pussy grabber shouldn't get a pass either.
Yet, we all know that some were throwing themselves at these guys. If they were married at the time, then they have their own values to look deeply at.
when I was in high school--I assume you too, every passing moment my thoughts and most men think of girls, sex and booze.
A natural! I got hard-ons many times a day--just looking. come on don't you think you are a little harsh.
Testifying about it is a different story. You just don't lie in court. period.
(no message)
many make the same mistake--saying that growing up is the same as growing inward.
I was in my late 30's before I realized that I was 18. That's when I grew-up.
But you became an attorney and never grew up. You think you did, at some point.
(no message)
(no message)
You know you're working with veritable geniuses when you have middle-aged dudes trotting out gems like those.
Balanced, happy people who while those of us who work for a living are doing just that, devote hours upon hours to draining the urine that dribbles from their pants onto this forum as they scare themselves over Mr. Trump.
(no message)
(no message)
look at yourself. You are not the only human on this earth, though you act as if you are. be respectful, honest and forthwith.
That will help you determine who you are.
Deservingly so, women are taking charge of the country. They are stronger, more resourceful, and way more clever.
The way men treat women in the workplace has forever changed. A show like MadMen would never get an audience now.
Men must tread the straight and narrow from now on, whereby even well intended and perfectly innocent interaction with women, must be cautiously managed.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
In other words, why would a person subject themselves to harassment, ridicule, and gossip, unless the calling to change gender is so compelling?
service.
Stop using your position to abuse people who don’t have power. Real hard to do.
I haven't had to change my behavior at work post-Weinstein.
that inhabit places like DC and Hollywood to a redunckulous degree.
(no message)
I really like that dress....lets get some drinks”, then you start having problems. Dick and cash register stay separate at all times. First rule of asset protection.
(no message)
I am guilty of using the former. Just an ol’ school habit, with no agenda whatsoever.
to any sort of conduct like this? I'd hate for us to overblow something like this and I know you most certainly wouldn't want to proceed with this unless we had some good, solid documentation and data.
BTW, have you ever noticed that whenever a politician, media figure or UHND Open Forum poster speaks of "having an honest conversation" on anything, invariably it involves a dishonest argument in which approximately one-half of the the facts are basically off-limits from discussion?
I agree that we shouldn't always jump to conclusions....but sometimes sheer numbers (Moore has at least 6 accusers at this point) make it obvious something happened. Also, its well documented that the legal system has a difficult time prosecuting these cases. A huge number of women report being abused....a small fraction of men are actually ever held legally accountable, which is why so many feel empowered to commit such acts in the first place.
Sure, quantity of accusations can sometimes be indicative of guilt, but that's dependent on some other factors. For instance, with Cos, there are a whole lot of women telling eerily similar stories about how precisely the Cos carried out the rapes. That adds to the plausibility of their claims. On the flip side, let's again talk about Bill. We have a whole string of women who've talked about consensual relationships with him, yet we have two or three who claimed he raped them. Is that what we usually see with serial rapists? A string of totally consensual relationships in which none of the women allege he abused them, and then several women the perp brutalizes and rapes? Doesn't strike me as terribly credible.
(no message)
These people have no right to be elected to or to hold office.
You think either Orange or Bill didn’t do it?
You're terribly sloppy.
My pleasure comes in finding blatant contradictions people make within less than 24 hours of their last foolish declarations. How many individuals in Washington and Hollywood have been accused of these things relative to the total population in question? Er, dozens, perhaps?
I'm not demanding convictions to judge someone guilty. For example, in the Sandusky case, we had McQueary's statements, someone who had every reason to deny what he saw. On the other hand, when I read the details of the accusations against Michael Jackson in the 1990s, I concluded they were bunk...efforts by some demented parents to cash in on their children's friendships with Jacko.
Since you broached the subject of Bill raping someone and Trump sexually assaulting someone else, precisely what evidence are you basing this upon? Can you recite the evidence for Broaddrick's case without consulting Wikipedia first?
I have no doubt both of those guys engaged in what is considered "sexual harassment" and certainly infidelities. I have no doubt Bill used Arkansas troopers to help procure women for him. That's a far cry from labeling him a "rapist." Same thing with Trump. The infamous statement by Trump with Billy Bush on that bus could be made by countless performers, athletes, politicians and rich guys who never assaulted a soul but who've had thousands of women willingly throw themselves at those guys. With both Clinton and Trump, I think you have a long string of bad behavior, but consensual relationships.
And you well know that very few males are actually expelled from school. Yet for you it’s a major issue.
Here it is not just rape, it’s unwanted touchings and gropings. And there are multiple examples with both people. How many do you need before you are unfit for the most important office in the world? Dozens? You make it much more complicated then it has to be. Society can simply say enough. We aren’t going to put people like that into Office and we will kick them out when they do these things. We aren’t going to cover it up anymore or demand ridiculous standards of proof. Not hard.
Now give me four lengthy paragraphs full of BS as to why that’s wrong.
Stop being dense. I know you're capable of at least that much. Very few politicians are actually accused of these sorts of behaviors..."and you well know that." Or would you like me to torment you a bit and crunch the numbers?
Let's do that. Rattle off the pols you know who've been accused of similar things and let's compare to the overall numbers. Then I can prattle on like squeaky doorknob about how that relegates the entire topic to the scrap heap of all things unworthy of serious discussion. Spiffy logic.
On the topic of being dense, I also labeled their behavior "bad." That means it's immoral. That means I disapprove of it. That means I won't vote for people like that. Do I need to write in third grade Trumpspeak for you to comprehend that? It's amazing that in your brain you took from my skepticism that Clinton and Trump are rapists that it thus means that I think they're worthy of public office and haven't done anything that I would still label immoral. Astounding.
There are literally tens of thousands of male college students, very few ever face your overblown problem. That’s a fact. It’s a relatively minor issue in the scheme of problems in the nation. You can focus on it all you want.
On the politicians it’s all about bad behavior that disqualifies them from the highest of offices. Trying reading the initial post. The point is that society may be getting to the point that the type of bad behavior alleged against both individuals may in the future be disqualifying for the most important office in the world. It isn’t now. Both are proof positive of that. Two out of the last four prez’s isn’t enough for you in terms of numbers, as well as all of the other politicians and celebrities recently named? We’ve only had 45 in history.
I know you are butt hurt over your pet issue but it has zero yo do with this one.
As I asked yesterday, if the IRS targeted but a few conservative organizations, was that issue "overblown?" If but a handful of landowners have their property unjustly seized due to abuse of eminent domain, does that make the issue "overblown?" Please stop.
There are thousands of elected politicians in this nation. A small, small percentage face these sorts of accusations. Even fewer than the 4% of American presidents you cite. Stop being dense.
Now, as to your strawmen: I've never said that politicians who behave like this should remain in office and I've never said that it's a bad thing they're being exposed. I do think it's a bad thing when someone lobs accusations like labeling people "rapists" and can't even recount any of the relevant evidence off the top of his head. That doesn't speak well of that person's reasoning and frankly speaks of someone talking out of his nether region.
And Frank, do my pretty ears deceive me, or did you just complain of someone having a "pet issue?" You pollute this board with hysterical Trump drivel on an hourly basis and you're complaining about someone else's "pet issue?" Why don't you hit the sack and recharge? Maybe you'll get some work done tomorrow and come back here a little stronger?
You just make shit up. I said serial woman abusers and predators. There is plenty in both histories to support that. I didn’t say rapists. And being able to recite the details of the incidents on a message board, please, you can do better than that.
Your eminent domain example is laughable. Again is it an issue? Yeah, to some extent. Is it a major one in the scheme of things in the Republic, no? There are many more important ones based in part on numbers. Same with your pet issue. Just not that big in the scheme of the many problems we face. A second or third tier problem at best.
Fitness for the highest office in the land and most important in the world is a tad higher, don’tcha think? Again the ONLY point I’m making is that society may be changing its fitness standard for that Office on the issue of sexually bad behavior by men. Do you agree or not? Oh, by the way do you think more than 4% of male college students are expelled for sexual misconduct?
I think you need a nice fall nap as well right now. Toodles.
Gotcha. Much different. Remind me again what evidence that you can't remember formed the basis for your conclusion that his affairs were non-consensual? "Abuse" does entail "non-consensuality," right?
Just so I don't go afoul of your rules, would you be a dear and enumerate what sorts of things form these "tiers" you mention? Maybe with all this time you're not doing actual work, you can devise a mathematical formula which informs us how much bandwidth should properly be distributed to each topic using this tier system? I'm going to go out on a limb and harbor a guess that Trump's pontifications and his comments on Russia will be firmly placed within tier one while all the things you don't enjoy thinking about will be no higher than tier three. Call it a hunch.
"Fitness for the highest office in the land and most important in the world is a tad higher, don’tcha think? Again the ONLY point I’m making is that society may be changing its fitness standard for that Office on the issue of sexually bad behavior by men. Do you agree or not?"
No, that's not the only assertion you've made in this thread. And, yes, I've now stated again that I'm all for society changing in that regard, provided that particular cases are rooted in solid evidence, something you seem not to be acquainted with on this issue given that you can't remember any. Again, particularly curious for a lawyer.
"Oh, by the way do you think more than 4% of male college students are expelled for sexual misconduct?"
No, I don't, Frank. Then again, I'm not the one who advanced the silly notion that quantity of cases determines whether a particular issue is important and worthy of discussion, as you've repeatedly done. If there are 5 unfounded cases in an entire year, spurred on by guidances by the previous administration and enabled by the codification of unjust, anti-Western principles within public institutions of higher learning, I think it merits a great deal of attention and investigation and debate.
You see or don’t see as it suits yer convenience.
Cutting through all of the tiresome bloviation by you, you are butt hurt by the fact that I think you “over-blow” this issue of white males accused of sexual assault under Title 9. Is it an issue, sure? Is it a pressing one in the pecking order of problems in this nation, no? And to claim that the lack of numbers of individuals impacted by it isn’t relevant to that pecking order is well, ludicrous.
On the politicians, you can require whatever standard of proof you want in yer own mind. But it’s hard to deny that it HAS become a priority issue that society is looking at. I questioned whether society is no longer going to require proof beyond a reasonable doubt when there are multiple women claiming the same thing and the offender simply offers denials.
There is very little, if anything in common between the two issues.
As usual you conflate apples and oranges in your bloviation. Carry on.