Al Franken's a chickenshit
- Thread starter iuwclurker1
- Start date
For you, I think you just got into a little whataboutism with trying to assign degrees of severity. Franken tongue kissing Tweeden without consent under the guise of "rehearsing" is similar behavior to Spacey and Weinstein.
As to the shot at "liberals", that mainly comes from being associated with some kind of "war on women" because of how I vote when some of the biggest supporters of the people leveling that accusation, and in some cases those who level it themselves, are that which they accuse others of in spades. I hate women because I do not believe in abortion but rapist Weinstein was a okay because he threw money to the cause.
Rock's flak jacket comment is up for people to read and decide on. I full stand behind what I said on that. Stick his wife or significant other in that same situation and, joke or not, Franken would probably have a black eye at the least. I do not care how much "protection" my wife may have, you grab at her breasts without consent, I am knocking you the **** out. Rock should have just left it at being indefensible. If a drunk female cannot provide consent when awake, then a sleeping female cannot provide it either.
As to Bill and Mike, they both pointed out Tweeden's past and that she was a conservative and left the "so she asked for it" as the unsaid understood. As you all would think if I made the same comments about somebody like O'Reilly feeling up an actress like Sharon Stone or a singer lime Madonna. Their proclivity to get nude for a job, act provocatively, or hold positions I feel may be open to ridicule gives me zero reason to feel I can put my hands on them.
Hope we clear now.
aggressively stuck his tongue in my mouth
is making a clumsy but aggressive pass? That's so full of shit, Goat. In any case, what's wrong here is Franken's denial. Until men have the balls to confront their actions, we'll never make any progress. Roy Moore's actions don't sound worse than Franken's, other than the age of the victims, but what's reallyl wrong with Moore's actions is that he steadfastly denies them now. That's what really shows hypocrisy on the part of Evangelicals. Not that they forgive his prior deeds, but that they tolerate his lying now. Moore and Franken are one an the same liar until either comes clean.
And until Franken comes clean, if Democrats don't demand that of him, they undermine their moral high ground. Your painting this as a false equivalence helps women none at all and emphasizes Colbert's sarcastic joke about liberal men explaining to women their situation.
Right, because they are both lying about not remembering but Moore's events occurred more than three decades whereas Franken's was only 11 years ago. Think, Thyrsis. You've got brains for a reason.
Until Franken comes clean, he's no better and maybe worse than Roy Moore as a public servant, with regards to lying about past misdeeds. He's lost all his credibility. And if you've watched him in any of the Senate committee meetings, he really rides a high horse.
Well, you can certainly take this opportunity to correct the record then. It was my recollection that you didn't find the claims against Clinton credible -- or, at least, not until he was safely finished running for office.
No, I don't want to misstate what you said -- that is most certainly not my intention. It is, however, my intention to say that I've never bought peoples' explanations that they didn't believe Jones, Broaddrick, and Willey and, as such, they defended Clinton. I think it worked the other way around -- because politics.
We've already had this debate, and we already proved you to be full of shit on this point. You want to accuse us of defending Weinstein? Then sack up and provide some evidence.
Someone accused Dems of being hypocrites for voting for a sexual abuser.
What I (correctly) pointed out before was that people didn't know about any of the accusations against Clinton when he was running for office, with one exception: the Paula Jones story was out there, but her story didn't add up, so a lot of people didn't believe it. If Broadrick and Lewinsky had broken before an election, I don't think Clinton would have survived it. You tried to turn the conversation into something else, and I refused to follow you. It now seems you had that deeper conversation with me, and I didn't even have to take part.
Do you not see the hypocrisy between
"while I don't remember the rehearsal for the skit as Leeann does,
and
I understand why we need to listen to and believe women's experiences."
So does he believe her version or not, despite his memory? He's just not coming clean. He's weaseling. He says he's a supporter and champion of women and is ashamed yet he.just.can't.come.clean. He's lost all credibility until he comes clean. That's the way redemption works.
Last edited:
I’m not excusing his behavior, but that picture was taken before he was a senator. He was still just a comedian back then...so it looks like he’s just being an idiot in the pic, since there are clearly a lot of people around.
Do you not see the hypocrisy between
"while I don't remember the rehearsal for the skit as Leeann does,
and
I understand why we need to listen to and believe women's experiences."
So does he believe her version or not, despite his memory? He's just not coming clean. He's weaseling. He says he's a supporter and champion of women and is ashamed yet he.just.can't.come.clean. He's lost all credibility until he comes clean. That's the way redemption works.
I will ask you, if someone accused you of this and you honestly remembered the event differently, what would you say? Not making excuses, curious what you would say.
Yes her story sounds like Franken making a move on her. Gross and maybe inappropriate, but not the same as Weinstein, at al. There are many different kinds of wrong. We don't do women any favors by treating them all the same. By conflating Franken and Weinstein, we implicitly tell women that what Weinstein did isn't all that bad.
Not you. Those you vote for. Those that fund who you vote for. Those that run in the same circles and seek the influence of those you vote for.
You did not defend him because you (a peon like me) had the truth hidden from you by politicians, media, and influence peddlers because Weinstein gave to the right causes. The same people that were the thought leaders of your politics leveled those accusations of "war on women" that, if not you, many of the posters in this board gladly pushed forward. And yet, these same thought leaders, were actively running interference or were turning a blind eye to actual abhorrent treatment of women because it was politically expedient to do so.
So no, not you, just a bunch of the people that are thought to be the thought leaders of the political party that you say best represents you. (And given the GOP is that party for me, I can see how you could consciously say that you do not agree with it, and that is not what you signed up for.)
That being said, kind of sucks to get tarred and feathered because of who you vote for doesn't it. Like when people scoff about the Republicans being the party of family values, I scoff at the idea of the Democrats being the protector of the underrepresented.
And you're still full of shit. Weinstein got away with it because he was rich and powerful. Full stop. But you always need to turn every story into a lesson about why liberals are bad, so you concoct this ridiculous idea that he was protected by the leftist elite because he was a leftist. It's partisan nonsense.
How? I think that the argument from women would go the other way. Whether Weinstein or Franken, when you force yourself on me without my consent, you are in the wrong. That is exactly the argument I see coming from women, particularly those who consider themselves feminists.
In the patriarchy a male's power is implicit. Both Franken and Weinstein were exerting their power over a female in their unwanted advances.
I would really love Zeke to weigh in here.
I'm not condoning what Al Franken has been accused of whatsoever, but, c'mon, you don't think Roy Moore's actions sound worse than Franken's? Really?? Because I beg to differ. Take Beverly Young Nelson's account for example.....
"Mr. Moore reached over and began groping me, putting his hands on my breasts. I tried to open my car door to leave, but he reached over and locked it so I could not get out. I tried fighting him off, while yelling at him to stop, but instead of stopping he began squeezing my neck attempting to force my head onto his crotch. I continued to struggle. I was determined that I was not allow him to force me to have sex with him. I was terrified. He was also trying to pull my shirt off. I thought that he was going to rape me. I was twisting and struggling and begging him to stop. I had tears running down my face."
You don't even know that he's wrong. Your extreme insistence on this is odd.
For instance, maybe he acknowledges kissing and even fake "tongue-ing" along the lines of what he did with "groping" in the picture? Maybe he intended it as a joke even though he acknowledges now the joke was inappropriate? Maybe the "joke" was utterly at odds with any concern for her interests as a female? And maybe that's what he remembers, but he doesn't think he went so far as she remembers it and thinks it's been distorted to some degree? And maybe he doesn't want to look like he's calling her a liar because in the end what he did wasn't okay even if her account isn't wholly accurate? If that's what this is, and I have no way of knowing, why should he come clean-er than what he's said?
For the umpteenth time, nobody is saying that Franken is above what's been alleged. None of us know him from Adam. But everybody gets to speak their own truth a bit. Even Ailes and Weinstein and Moore. They lost most of that, though, when it became clear that the worst said about them was true.
Not to mention a certain Donald J Trump.
I’m all for investing Al Frankenfor this. The pic of him looks like he’s just being an idiot...since he’s in front of a bunch of people, not sneaking into her tent while she was sleeping.
If he did jam his tongue down her throat during a rehearsal, that’s pretty bad.
I’m all for investing Al Frankenfor this. The pic of him looks like he’s just being an idiot...since he’s in front of a bunch of people, not sneaking into her tent while she was sleeping.
If he did jam his tongue down her throat during a rehearsal, that’s pretty bad.
And you don't think this came out as vindication for Old Roy's behavior? So are you calling for Judge Roy to step down because of his actions? Tweeden should be set-up nicely for a Fox News position now as she sure fits the stereotype of that network to a T.[/QUOTE]
OK, so first of all, were you in this group of "a lot of people"?
Second, how is that any different from what I said? I said you (if you want to make this a general collective thing about "a lot of people", then feel free) didn't find the claims against Clinton to be credible....until he was finished running for office.
This is not to say that I don't believe what you're saying, BTW. I agree that many people didn't believe Jones' claim -- or, later, Broaddrick's and Willey's. What I'm saying is that it's my contention that the actual reason they didn't believe them isn't because the claims weren't credible or anything like that. They arrived at that conclusion out of political expediency....whether they want to admit it or not.
We've moved from white racial resentment to male gender resentment.
That wiki link says nothing wrong about her. So what if she's a model? My daughter wanted to be too.
No. No back at ya. Because I'm not doing what you are. I didn't accuse conservatives of protecting Ailes because he helped the cause. No false equivalencies. This is a you problem, not a me one.
Moore's actions were clearly worse.
But neither of them are befitting a US Senator. I'd say there are reasons beyond the sexual stuff that Moore shouldn't be in the Senate. But those are obviously reason enough.
FTR, Bob Packwood resigned from the Senate (and would've been expelled had he not resigned) for sexual acts which are more akin to what Franken apparently did.
Don't you get it? Franken and Moore are doing, at the very least, one same wrong RIGHT NOW. They're both weaseling. NOW. That's a problem.
I had no opinion about Paula Jones. I was a teenager. But you're still refusing to see the key point. There was no issue of finding his accusers incredible until he was done running for office, because all but one of them didn't even make an accusation until he was done running for office. The original accusation that conflated Trump and Clinton on this point was simply inaccurate.
I'm talking about now. Look at my first post. It's about both lying NOW. Louis CK is the only one so far who's had the balls to tell the truth.
Franken has no credibility until he fesses up. Period. Just how the game works.
It's really simple, maestro. Franken makes a statement saying we should believe women's stories. Ergo, he advocates himself believing her story. Except...(oh by the way, it's not true but I still believe it). Nope, Thyrsis, it doesn't work that way. Franken wants credibility, he has to walk the walk and fess up. He needs to say, I believe her. I screwed the pooch.
Yeah, and I really don't care. I wasn't responding to your point about weaseling. I was responding to posters who are trying to create a false equivalency.
All but one ≠ none, Goat. And, besides, the defending of Clinton lasted well beyond 1996 -- and you know that.
FTR, that's cool with me. I'm openly admitting to doing the same thing right now. One kinda has to if they're going to vote for somebody like Trump -- just like one had to if they're going to support Bill Clinton. It's not that I particularly want to support a creep. But my tolerance for creepy behavior is quite admittedly affected by political expediency.
I think the same goes for many people. But few ever cop to it.
Okay, but what you're really doing is delegitimizing any woman's complaint that you consider "Gross and maybe inappropriate." Maybe inappropriate? Since when is any sexual harassment appropriate?
1. Franken sexually assaulted her.
2. He's not openly admitting it.
That's the story here and it's 100% and entirely independent of any other incident on the face of this planet.
So what? None of that has to do with what I said before. I steadfastly refused to follow you down this rabbit hole, sticking strictly to attacking the false claim that Clinton voters had to do the same mental gymnastics Trump voters did. That's it. When you tried to make the conversation more than that, I said "Good day, sir." But you now remember me advocating whichever position it is you imagined I would have all along, which is what I am taking issue with today.
So, consider yourself duly corrected.
BTW, since we're back on the subject again....GHWB has a new butt-grabbing accuser. And, this time, she says it happened during the 1992 campaign. So much for the "old man" excuse....not to mention the excuse that his hand just hangs at that elevation because of the wheelchair.
May as well start calling him Goose HW Bush.
May as well start calling him Goose HW Bush.
Gee, I wonder why you didn't want to go beyond that.
You just don't want to admit what's obvious. It's OK -- you're far from alone.
If I were exactly in Franken's shoes and I knew that I had not stuck my tongue in her but everything else was true (for example), and I wanted to make that above statement about supporting women and believing their stories, I'd keep it simple and say something like, "There's not doubt that my behavior should be understood as sexual harassment. I was wrong. I accept full responsibility for my misbehavior. I apologize to Leeann." That reserves the private possibility for him to tell the Senate investigation that she embellished.
In other words, because I wouldn't be afraid of the legal or civil liabilities of the tongue aspect, I wouldn't need to address that. If she falsely accused me of rape. full frontal denial. In this case, 1) he was the aggressor, 2) he was wrong, 3) he should take one for her and for women and be a statesman.
That's my very quick 2-cent response.
I see it doesn't matter. You are comfortable accusing me of hypocrisy whether I demonstrate it or not.
Sexual harassment ( as I said in the previous paragraph)? You name it, Mr. Anally Retentive Lawyer. Either you get the point or not. I assert that liberal Senator Al Franken equivocating on this is worse for women than some idiots on a message board creating a false equivalence between a French kiss _____ (you name it) and copping a feel through a blouse of a 14 year old (or whatever the sordid details are).
They never miss a chance to get up on a high horse.
A a republican running for senate tried to sexually assault teenage girls? “Golly gosh, I don’t live in AL and I wouldn’t vote for him.”
A republican running for President openly brags about that he just starts kissing women whenever he feels like it and admits he walks in on teenage girls changing clothes? “Uh, but Bill Clinton...”
A single report of a democratic senator inappropriately kissing a female coworker and then staging a pretty dumb picture? “That son of a bitch needs to be investigated, fired, and then shot!!! The whole party should be kicked out of the government!!! You guys are a bunch of hypocrites and you all thoroughly disgust my Christian sensibilities!!!”
This isn't about how we talk on the Cooler. It's about how society deals with this reckoning now that women are starting to open up about poor treatment at the hands of men. Not all misbehavior is the same. It's important to remember that.
