Next up! Al Franken

[Spatial Ed]

One thing these threads have proven - hypocrisy knows no more ideological boundary than sexism, racism, or any of the other isms.

You think this thread is bad, you shoulda seen the one @Dogdeleted.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

One thing these threads have proven - hypocrisy knows no more ideological boundary than sexism, racism, or any of the other isms.

Not really.  Sen. Franken's picture is sophomoric and at a time when we as a society are starting to take women's accusations seriously instead of ignoring them, provides evidence to argue in favor of his resignation, which I have advocated. It's a close call for me, because his hands are clearly not on her tits, and if she really was asleep, she likely never knew about the picture until seeing it, and quite likely being humiliated by it.  That's enough for me.  

Sen. Franken himself has spoken about that picture specifically, and apologized for it, while noting that he remembers other events differently than Ms. Tweeden.  Dog, and others like him who seek to move the football after the tackle, while there is still a pileup, would have you believe that Franken admitted groping because of his apology.  Bullshitters gotta bullshit.

The fact that Roger Stone is in any way involved in this should tell anyone that there is a substantial amount of bullshit involved here.  

 

[Dog]

Not really.  Sen. Franken's picture is sophomoric and at a time when we as a society are starting to take women's accusations seriously instead of ignoring them, provides evidence to argue in favor of his resignation, which I have advocated. It's a close call for me, because his hands are clearly not on her tits, and if she really was asleep, she likely never knew about the picture until seeing it, and quite likely being humiliated by it.  That's enough for me.  

Sen. Franken himself has spoken about that picture specifically, and apologized for it, while noting that he remembers other events differently than Ms. Tweeden.  Dog, and others like him who seek to move the football after the tackle, while there is still a pileup, would have you believe that Franken admitted groping because of his apology.  Bullshitters gotta bullshit.

The fact that Roger Stone is in any way involved in this should tell anyone that there is a substantial amount of bullshit involved here.  

Ok...I retract the word "groping" and substitute the word "violated" (Franken's own word).

 

[Spatial Ed]

Ok...I retract the word "groping" and substitute the word "violated" (Franken's own word).

Can we now work on the word admitting?

 

[Mrleft8]

A lack of a denial is as good as an admission of guilt.... Right, Dog?

 

[badlatitude]

Franken's not to blame...clearly she was asking for it.

She definitely set the mood. Another pic from the REHEARSAL where Franken is watching while a soldier dry humps "victim" @LeeannTweeden. Maybe she got confused about which tongue belonged to which one. Tongues are all pretty much alike. Some more active.

 

[Blue Crab]

Since when did petting constitute groping?

When it's unwelcome.

 

[badlatitude]

That's exactly why Al wants an investigation.  At this point it's looking like it might have been an all in gang bang. 

Al doesn't want this turned into slut-shaming.

 

[BeSafe]

Not really.  Sen. Franken's picture is sophomoric and at a time when we as a society are starting to take women's accusations seriously instead of ignoring them, provides evidence to argue in favor of his resignation, which I have advocated. It's a close call for me, because his hands are clearly not on her tits, and if she really was asleep, she likely never knew about the picture until seeing it, and quite likely being humiliated by it.  That's enough for me.  

Sen. Franken himself has spoken about that picture specifically, and apologized for it, while noting that he remembers other events differently than Ms. Tweeden.  Dog, and others like him who seek to move the football after the tackle, while there is still a pileup, would have you believe that Franken admitted groping because of his apology.  Bullshitters gotta bullshit.

The fact that Roger Stone is in any way involved in this should tell anyone that there is a substantial amount of bullshit involved here.  

Maybe I should just say the load stone of politics seems to be able to easily overwhelm the compass of morality.  And i mean this whole collection of this type of thread, including those on free speech, statues, affirmative action, etc.  There truly appears to be no moral foundation to any of this - just pick a team and go for the talking points.

 

[Mrleft8]

So.................... If a woman grabs a guy by the crotch, rubs up against him simulating copulation, pretends to perform oral sex on him, and kisses him, it's part of the show, but if the guy pretends to grope her, and returns the kiss, it's sexual assault?

 

[badlatitude]

I think it's unfortunate that people cannot tell the difference between rehearsal and the actual production. Instead, we make accusations based on comic interpretations of a script, and photos presumed by some to be actual occurrences.

 

[BeSafe]

Just because a stunt man allows an actor to shoot him during a scene, it's NOT PERMISSION TO ACTUALLY SHOOT HIM later on.

It's REALLY not that complicated to separate the two.  It's REALLY not.

 

[Sean]

Maybe I should just say the load stone of politics seems to be able to easily overwhelm the compass of morality.  And i mean this whole collection of this type of thread, including those on free speech, statues, affirmative action, etc.  There truly appears to be no moral foundation left - just pick a team and go for the talking points.

In terms of morality, I just don't see how you can equate the two "teams". Sexual harassment, global warming and renewable energy, access to healthcare, income inequality and trickle down economics, support for the needy, .... this list goes on.

I may be a partisan hack, but from where I sit, the "right" is on the wrong side of the issues. Ironically, the God fearing evangelicals seem to be the worst of the lot. 

 

[badlatitude]

Just because a stunt man allows an actor to shoot him during a scene, it's NOT PERMISSION TO ACTUALLY SHOOT HIM later on.

It's REALLY not that complicated to separate the two.  It's REALLY not.

Except, in this case, it was all contained in the rehearsal.

Leeann Tweeden, a radio news anchor with KABC in Los Angeles, said she met Franken in December 2006, before he became a lawmaker, at a USO show for service members that included a skit he wrote that featured a kiss between the two.

She said Franken, a former "Saturday Night Live" cast member and liberal activist who was elected to the Senate in 2008 and won a second term in 2014, insisted on rehearsing the scene backstage.

"He said to me, 'We need to rehearse the kiss.' I laughed and ignored him. Then he said it again. I said something like, 'Relax Al, this isn't SNL. … We don’t need to rehearse the kiss'," she wrote in a lengthy and detailed post on KABC's website.

"He continued to insist, and I was beginning to get uncomfortable."

Tweeden said she reluctantly agreed to rehearse the line leading up to the kiss and that's when Franken "came at me, put his hand on the back of my head, mashed his lips against mine and aggressively stuck his tongue in my mouth."

"I immediately pushed him away with both of my hands against his chest and told him if he ever did that to me again I wouldn't be so nice about it the next time," she said. "I felt disgusted and violated."

Franken, through a spokesperson, responded: "I certainly don’t remember the rehearsal for the skit in the same way, but I send my sincerest apologies to Leeann." https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/sen-al-franken-accused-forcibly-kissing-groping-woman-n821381

 

[madohe]

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Maybe I should just say the load stone of politics seems to be able to easily overwhelm the compass of morality.  And i mean this whole collection of this type of thread, including those on free speech, statues, affirmative action, etc.  There truly appears to be no moral foundation to any of this - just pick a team and go for the talking points.

I don't think it's all team players.  Plenty of folks we call lefties are jumping on Franken.  There's right and there's wrong, and the pic of Franken posing as if he is grabbing a sleeping woman's tits is wrong.  He admitted that.  Morality vs. politics doesn't enter the equation for me.  He did something wrong and he should step down and let Minnesota pick someone else (or return him there if they deem it appropriate).  

The rest of the story?  I don't know it.  I know that Roger Stone is involved, so there is a 99.9% chance that it is not being presented honestly.  

 

[Rockdog]

Yep, saw it here just the other day:

And yes, I called out the bigotry. Oddly none of the usual opponents of homophobic bigotry did the same. Can't figure out why.

What’s homophobic or bigoted about asking someone why the are prancing around like a gay dude?

 

[BeSafe]

In terms of morality, I just don't see how you can equate the two "teams". Sexual harassment, global warming and renewable energy, access to healthcare, income inequality and trickle down economics, support for the needy, .... this list goes on.

I may be a partisan hack, but from where I sit, the "right" is on the wrong side of the issues. Ironically, the God fearing evangelicals seem to be the worst of the lot. 

From the 'right' perspective, abortion is murder.  Are people on the left who support choice immoral or do they have a different point of view.  From 'the right', stopping free speech at campuses in the name or tolerance is 'evil'.  Are the people on the left evil?  From the right, the best way to improve income inequality is by increasing opportunity.  Is wanting people to improve their lot through their own efforts 'immoral'?  You can argue that you don't agree with their approach but that's different than saying they're evil.  Sugar coating things like 'oh, you don't care about the poor' is just a back door way of saying they're evil.  It is.

The difference between a partisan hack and a moral argument is that partisans are never wrong. They just backfill what they need to justify their position.  That's a really easy test.  If you're never wrong, then you're far more likely a partisan than actually arguing from any real moral position.  Morality can take you places you don't necessarily want to go and usually does.  Happens all the time.  it's why groups like the ACLU end up defending the KKK.  But ideology never has that conflict because it's inherently self serving and narcissistic.  Trump is an absolute stunning example of a partisan of his own ideology.  When has he EVER admitted he was wrong?

FWIW, PA is a 'partisan cage match' IHMO - not a moral proving ground.  Virtually all the arguments here are just ideological shit storms that ebb and flow.

 

[Blue Crab]

Sean: I may be a partisan hack, but from where I sit, the "right" is on the wrong side of the issues. Ironically, the God fearing evangelicals seem to be the worst of the lot. 

It really is funny peculiar, and I have a small hope that the Moore situation is generational. All those southern roosters and their old biddies grew up with all that misogeny, and they can't be ordered around by us hipsters, intellectuals, or any other goldarned sonsofbitches that aren't from Sweet Home. My hope is that Moore will be dealt an embarrassing defeat by his own 'jus folks.

 

[Steam Flyer]

From the 'right' perspective, abortion is murder.  Are people on the left who support choice immoral or do they have a different point of view.  From 'the right', stopping free speech at campuses in the name or tolerance is 'evil'.  Are the people on the left evil?  From the right, the best way to improve income inequality is by increasing opportunity.  Is wanting people to improve their lot through their own efforts 'immoral'?  You can argue that you don't agree with their approach but that's different than saying they're evil.  Sugar coating things like 'oh, you don't care about the poor' is just a back door way of saying they're evil.  It is.

The difference between a partisan hack and a moral argument is that partisans are never wrong. They just backfill what they need to justify their position.  That's a really easy test.  If you're never wrong, then you're far more likely a partisan than actually arguing from any real moral position.  Morality can take you places you don't necessarily want to go and usually does.  Happens all the time.  it's why groups like the ACLU end up defending the KKK.  But ideology never has that conflict because it's inherently self serving and narcissistic.  Trump is an absolute stunning example of a partisan of his own ideology.  When has he EVER admitted he was wrong?

Abortion and murder are to different things. It's easy to tell because we have two different words for that. You are assuming that a pretense of a moral absolute is in fact a moral absolute.

False equivalence is a huge problem and the right exploits this at full strength +

Crooked Hillary has had a 20 year campaign of accusations levelled at her. She must be guilty of something. Donald Trump has a twenty year history of racist business practices and sexual harassment of women. The accusations (and the occasional court decision) against him must be false accusations for political advantage.

But the accusations that are generated out of thin air by political talking heads and accusations that are generated by people who were on the spot at the time out of events that documentably happened are treated as equal.

By one side, of course.

-DSK