Re: Leeann Tweeden, Al Franken's first accuser.

Excuse me, but did someone order a lying, hypocritical tramp at this table?

And regarding the photograph of Franken supposedly groping her breasts?

It's a fake!

Those comment thingies in the past few weeks where I wasn't sure we were seeing a broad social change rather than just a series of essentially petty show business scandals?

That rhetoric is now, as Ziegler once put it, inoperative.

Cathy Young's citation at the bottom of that stack is jaw-dropping. These kids are all fucked up. Perhaps in the centuries before social media, such milquetoast spirits would be overwhelmed by the red-blooded personalities around them, such that their timidity didn't corrupt the social churn of our burgeoning civilization....

...Y'know, the kind of churn that keeps our species moving forward. As Seinfeld once put it, children are great, but They are here to replace us.

For the third time in a week, let me quote the Guardian article:

And if something feels abundant, whether it’s liberty or oil, human nature dictates that its value will fall. Maybe that explains the current vogue among students for banning, removing and silencing.

That is a serious cause for concern, Crid. Silly me, I always thought sexual harassment had to be -- well, you know -- sexual.

And sexual harassment can only happen in the workplace.

Congress is being swept:

https://twitter.com/KT_So_It_Goes/status/932814260069072896

Threats of firing were a common theme Monday: Rose.

Charlie Rose #1, Charlie Rose #2.

Charlie Rose #3.

These guys just seem so pathetic. It's not like these stories make you envy the sexual power of their media fame. Rose was popping out of the shower naked. Weinstein was squirting into potted plants. How lonely can you get?

The beauty of this tweet is that there are at least three remarkable stories this week to which it might be alluding.

I see the point about the Al Franken photo - but why is he apologizing?

Radwaste: I see the point about the Al Franken photo - but why is he apologizing?

Good question. I would say that he bought into the propaganda that states that all women who come forward must be believed. But I would point out that he never apologized for any specific incident. He didn't confess to groping her while she slept, nor did he confess to sticking his tongue down her throat. And he did say that he did not remember that USO show the way she did.

...there are at least three remarkable stories this week to which it might be alluding. ~ Crid at November 21, 2017 4:00 AM

Only three?

It's a fake! ~ Patrick at November 21, 2017 2:54 AM

Snopes disagrees.

Also, the second woman.

It is likely that many of these accusations, even when true, are politically motivated. The timing alone seems to scream political motivation, or at least make one want to say, "hmmmm."

That "it's a fake" site is just tripe-filled.

I believe Franken's brother took the photo. I read that somewhere. Could be wrong. But deadline day; have to get cracking. Perhaps someone else can look it up.

Photographers may not "come forward" for reasons of their own.

Instapundit piece worth reading (Glenn Reynolds).

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/11/20/social-media-threat-people-survived-disease-we-can-handle-twitter-glenn-reynolds-column/879185001/

Connan,

That's gonna be Alinsky's Rule for Radicals #4:

"Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."

Never use the word 'problematic.'

Conan - look at the language Snopes uses. "The image was not staged", etc., doesn't rule out its being faked.

Just look at the shadows. Where is the flash?

-----

This is trivial. Outrage over this does three horrible things: it denies that sexuality is innate and primal, it denies that there is any component of sexuality which is funny, and it expressly denies any hint of equality between the sexes.

Oh, yeah, lady, you can be a killer in uniform, machine-gunning an Isis operative in half, but can't stand a hand on you even outside your clothes, and you'll be triggered and scarred for life at a dick joke.

Conan: Snopes disagrees.

It would help if you examined the evidence on the site I posted, before you attempt to rebut it.

As it is, you're talking about two different things. The website addresses the apparent inconsistencies with the photo, suggesting that Franken (and Tweeden) were 'shopped in. And the Snopes article you posted doesn't claim the photo is fake or not; only addresses a fake quote supposedly made up by the photographer that the image was staged.

In other words, Conan, the website I posted claims it's a Photoshop. The website you posted rebutted a claim made the supposed photographer that the photo was staged.

Embarrassed? You should be. You just caught trying to rebut something you haven't even read.

And as for you, Amy, it's too bad you can't admit you're wrong. I used to think you could. Now I know you can't.

There is something very useful that did come from Conan's Snopes article, even if what the article addresses is almost completely irrelevant to the point I made. Contrary to what Amy thinks she might have read somewhere, Owen Franken (Al's brother) denies taking that picture. And no one knows who the photographer is. So, unless you've got some evidence that Owen is lying...

As for the site, I think the most logical points are made by the veterans. The flak suit is a requirement, as can been seen by the fact that Tweeden is wearing one. So, where's Franken's?

Also, that seat that she's sitting in? I've sat in those before in a C-130 when I was stationed at Ft. Bragg. Those seats are tiny. When you're in those, you're strapped in. There is simply no way you could be asleep in one of those seats, not strapped in, and remain in that seat.

Also, why is Franken the only person in that photo casting shadows?

Thots gonna thot.

> I see the point about
> the Al Franken photo -
> but why is he
> apologizing?

Because it's the only sane response. He didn't merely apologize, he confessed to the transgression as well. It's real. He said so.

Guys, it's not just the sixties that are over, it's the eighth grade that's over, too.

It's blindingly apparent that the voters most confounded on thesematters are the ones bearing personal admiration for our goofyshit president. They're incapable of thinking, and certainly of voting, ironically.

They MEAN it. They WANT to live on a planet of Junior High grumbling and resentments.

Radwaste: Oh, yeah, lady, you can be a killer in uniform, machine-gunning an Isis operative in half, but can't stand a hand on you even outside your clothes, and you'll be triggered and scarred for life at a dick joke.

To say nothing of her strumpet-like behavior of twerking against an unsuspecting male performer, then grabbing his ass, then later sobbing uncontrollably, "Oh, I felt so violated when he pantomimed grabbing my breasts."

And that liplock she planted on that obviously nonconsensual male soldier. Even if that soldier himself didn't make an issue about it, how does she know he's not married?

Now, some have argued that it doesn't matter what she does; she still has the right to decide who touches her. To which I would counter, "If you don't like being groped by just anyone, perhaps you shouldn't be groping just anyone."

Imagine a woman on a dance floor, making lewd and suggestive dance moves on her partner, pawing him all the over the place, then when he decides to play along and reciprocate, she gets offended, slaps him and runs off the dance floor sobbing.

That last paragraph I wrote could work as a comedy skit. The serial groperette feels violated when she encounters a groper.

> "The image was not staged",
> etc., doesn't rule out its
> being faked.

Raddy, that's just pathetic ... "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

The great thing about the Boy Scouts and the Armed Forces is not that their oaths forbid equivocation evasion. The great thing about the Boy Scouts and the armed forces is that there are a lot of motivated and attentive young men in your social circle who will beat the shit out of you when get in the habit of quibbling.

Crid: Raddy, that's just pathetic ...

No, Crid. You're the one who's being just pathetic. (So, what else is new?)

The Snopes article merely addresses the claim that the photographer supposedly had come forward and stated that the image was staged. One of the arguments that Snopes uses to counter this is that no one has actually come forward to claim that they photographed this.

You can't say that the photographer said that it was staged when no one has actually claimed to be the photographer and no one knows who the photographer is. Duh.

Snopes never even attempts to address the authenticity of photograph itself, only to point out that no photographer has ever claimed that the image was staged (again, because we don't know who the photographer).

It's really not hard, Crid. Snopes merely points out that no one has come forward claiming to be photographer and said that the image was staged. Snopes does not, nor does it even try, to address the question of the picture's authenticity.

Amy thinks that maybe she might have read somewhere at some point in time that Al's brother took the photograph. Well, gee, how do we come up with a counter to such an obvious certainty?

Except Owen Franken (Al's only brother, a photojournalist) denies taking that picture.

In looking at the first article I posted, I noticed they made a reference to a photographer named erika szostak, who denounced the image as fake, and listed her reasons for thinking so.

I Googled the name, and she does indeed have a professional photographer's website. She even has her name listed in lower case, like the website gives her name.

I haven't actually gotten around to asking her about the picture, but perhaps I will.

It is likely that many of these accusations, even when true, are politically motivated. The timing alone seems to scream political motivation, or at least make one want to say, "hmmmm."

Oh, Conan, are you not familiar with the Klingon proverb that tells us that revenge is a dish best served cold?

But I would point out that he never apologized for any specific incident.

Almost like they have the same fixer with the same game plan. Don't many of them have David Boies as their lawyer? it's the "Ben Affleck/Matt Damon non-apology".

According to experts in civil-rights law, there are many potential outcomes to the investigation. One possibility is that it could lead to litigation in court between the Justice Department and Harvard. In that case, if a federal judge finds that Harvard has violated Title VI, the court has broad authority to issue a remedy, such as ordering the university to change its admissions policies, experts say.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/harvard-faces-doj-probe-over-affirmative-action-policies-1511260380

"Raddy, that's just pathetic ... "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is.""

Knee-jerking. Go look at the picture. I've heard you do something with video, maybe you can explain how the flash produced shadows with more than one point of origin... duffer here, it just smells.

That's why I asked why Franken's apologizing!

Assuming that's an original photo. Can we blame this on Karl Rove?

Just look at the shadows. Where is the flash?

The photo was taken in 2006, so it was probably taken with a professional-level digital camera using a high ISO setting and a camera-mounted light source. Thus, the shadows behind Franken but not Tweeden and the light reflected in Wid?'s sunglasses.

I don't know the interior of a C-17, so I can't comment on how the light would bounce in one if the photographer was bouncing the light.

Besides, Franken has acknowledged the photo and apologized, so I'm inclined to believe it's not faked or staged, whether at the scene or in post-processing.

So, what happened?

He was a political commentator for Air America (radio) and comedian at the time. He'd co-written a successful movie (When A Man Loves A Woman) and written and starred in a bomb, (Stuart Saves His Family). He'd been the head writer at Saturday Night Live but left when he failed to get an on-camera role on the "Weekend Update" segment. Thus far, his career highlights had been behind the camera. He was getting older and, despite his success, had not had a glamorous life up to this point, but he had lived at the periphery of glamour.

Tweeden was at that time, a former Hooter's waitress, a model, and sports commentator (i.e., a pretty face put on the sidelines to catch a player's eye and get an quick interview). She'd done swimwear and lingerie spreads and been on the covers of FHM, Playboy and other "lad mags," all non-nude at the time, but probably pretty racy nonetheless.

Al's then-55-year-old wife, Franni, is no bombshell. They'd been married since 1975 (31 years then). I can only imagine the nerdy and nebbish then-55-year-old Franken was smitten with the glamorous and sexy then-36-year-old Tweeden and undertook to catch her eye, but was clumsy and awkward in doing so.

We see Franken's bullying demeanor in Senate hearings. This is not a man used to wielding power or receiving the deference of the women and alpha males around him, so he uses the power of his office like a club. Unaccustomed to the attention of glamorous women and confronted with the sex-on-a-stick that was Tweeden, he probably went a little giddy.

I see the same behavior in Trump's "grab 'em by the pussy" remarks; Inflating one's success with women where there was little in the way of charism to draw women to him, leaving him to fall back on using his financial position to arrange a meet-up and hoping the woman will fall in love with him once she gets to know "real" him. Beauty and the Beast writ large.

I believe Franken's brother took the photo. ~ Amy Alkon at November 21, 2017 5:00 AM

Owen Franken, a photojournalist, has denied taking the photo.

Photographers may not "come forward" for reasons of their own. ~ Amy Alkon at November 21, 2017 5:00 AM

The photographer may fear a lawsuit or a social backlash for being involved in Franken's now-notorious antics.

Since Tweeden has said she got the photo from a CD of shots from the trip, the photographer may be regularly retained by or associated with the USO and fear losing that association.

Both the photographer and the USO may be concerned about the implications of being party to a mimed assault on one of the USO's entertainers. This can't be a good recruiting tool for the USO, "Join the USO, entertain the troops, and get assaulted by a nerd."

As for the site, I think the most logical points are made by the veterans. The flak suit is a requirement, as can been seen by the fact that Tweeden is wearing one. So, where's Franken's?

Best guess: they're out of country, and over a non-combat area. He simply took his off.

Or he's an asshole who believes the rules don't apply to him. And no one else cared enough to correct him.

*shrugs* I really don't give a shit. I want his scalp, tho. Don't try to convince me this is wrong - it is. I just want the progzi's to suffer under rules they fashioned and thought they could inflict upon anyone not them with no comeuppance. I want them to choke on their rules, and then I want them to cry uncle.

Oh, Conan, are you not familiar with the Klingon proverb that tells us that revenge is a dish best served cold? ~ I R A Darth Aggie at November 21, 2017 7:03 AM

No, but I'm familiar with the Sicilian proverb.

I'm also familiar with the fact that scandalous accusations generate a a level of publicity that can be a wonderful thing to revive a flagging career or inject some excitement into an otherwise humdrum life. And the best ones are ones that are close to true and that cannot be disproven, i.e., at least 10 years in the past with little-to-no evidence or proof.

For your consideration:

Allow me to hop on board the runaway Accuser Bandwagon: I witnessed Al Franken commit sexual harassment, and from a front row seat.

...

Franken (or was it Davis?) announced it was time to take a break from the rollicking hilarity and laughter. It was time to dance!

They each stepped off the front of the stage and into the chairs and picked out two comely young college girls and brought them up to the stage. The lights dimmed. Soft, romantic music began to play. Franken and Davis wrapped their arms around their partners and pressed their bodies close. The girls complied.

They danced. They swayed.

And then Al’s hands slid down to his dancing partner’s ass. And I use the word ‘ass’ because in that context, that’s the word you’d use. Not buttocks or fanny or tail or bottom. Ass.

His hands began fondling her ass.

Same with Davis.

Ha ha ha. There was laughter from the assembled voyeurs, excuse me, spectators.

The girls both reached behind and moved the roving hands up.

After which the hands slid back down to cop another slow, sensuous feel. Over and over and over.

...

Was the Fanny Fondle skit a one-off?

Did Al Franken grab ass in all of his shows? A hundred times? Two hundred?

Was the skit Franken’s idea?

Did Al get off on it?

Did he find some extra thrill in being able to exert their power WHILE ON STAGE IN FRONT OF AN AUDIENCE?

Did he score often enough to repeat the act?

But of course Al Franken, a good liberal, matured and grew. Came to respect women.

Fought against Republicans and their War on Women.

Surely Al Franken would never continue that Fanny Fondle pattern of behavior.

https://spectator.org/shall-we-dance-al-franken-what-about-that-time-in-montana/

Once is an accident. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is an enemy action.

https://pagesix.com/2017/11/20/new-pics-show-al-franken-grabbing-arianna-huffingtons-breasts-and-butt/

In looking at the [second] article I posted.... ~ Patrick at November 21, 2017 6:51 AM

As far as the article pointing out that Tweeden was friendly with Franken after the incident, weren't we told during the Anita Hill hearings that such post-harassment friendliness does not negate the charges and that women are often powerless and must "make nice" with their tormenters? Even when they no long work with or for those tormenters?

Conan: As far as the article pointing out that Tweeden was friendly with Franken after the incident, weren't we told during the Anita Hill hearings that such post-harassment friendliness does not negate the charges and that women are often powerless and must "make nice" with their tormenters? Even when they no long work with or for those tormenters?

That's a possibility, but did Anita Hill emphatically deny having any contact with Clarence Thomas the way Leeann denied having any contact with Al?

Regarding the possibility of Al Franken taking off his flak jacket, that's a possibility, but his hair doesn't look like it was under a helmet. Also, taking off that gear is easier said than done. In his place, I'd simply leave it on and not fuck with it until the time came to take it off and someone was on hand to take it from me. He still has to turn it in when he's done with it.

Finally, Al Franken, in one of his books, has a picture of him with Neil Armstrong riding on a helicopter, both wearing flight gear and joked about it, "Can you tell which one of us is more accustomed to wearing flight gear?"

So, if he has a cavalier attitude toward the required gear that the military insists that all civilians much wear, then he acquired this attitude fairly recently.

Also, regarding the apology, I've reread it, and I think it's a possibility that Franken doesn't even remember doing this (because it didn't happen) and he was simply conceding what he thinks the photograph undoubtedly shows.

As for the kiss, he did not admit to doing that, nor did he apologize for that incident specifically. And he includes the statement that Leeann remembers the incident differently than he does.

Sounds to me like he's adhering to his previously stated position that we must believe these victims who come forward.

Also, there is a photograph of the kiss, and Franken, contrary to Tweeden's statement is most definitely not grabbing her by her head, nor does she look like she's resisting at all. In fact, it looks like she's enjoying it, like she appears to enjoying every other incident of her pawing various men at this event.

I read Conan's link regarding the second woman, and I have a simple question: where is this picture?

Moreover, to the guys who are married, let me ask you, hypothetically speaking, if you're going to take a picture of your wife with a Senator, and that Senator intentionally puts a hand on your wife's ass, what do you do? Just go ahead and take the picture anyway?

If you answer yes to that question, then my next question is, "What kind of man are you?"

Ladies, if you have your husband take a picture of you with a Senator, and that Senator deliberately puts his hand on your ass, what do you think your husband would do?

Ouch.

It’s where we are. It’s the state to which we’ve been driven. America has created third world countries in large cities like Baltimore, Chicago, L.A., Atlanta, Houston, and St. Louis, by means of handouts and fatherless families. Opening the borders hasn’t helped. The result is third world hell holes that scare even the police, but given that the police are the largest gang in America, they will respond in kind.

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2017/11/20/counterinsurgency-and-stability-operations-in-baltimore/

Celebrity Perv Apology Generator

https://apologygenerator.com/

*Never use the word 'problematic.'*

Sounds like something Ronco would sell.

"The Ronco Congressional Problematic! Now a media-hungry politician will never lack for an exploitable crisis again! Just put in the cash, turn the handle, and presto - a publicity tempest! Teapot sold separately."

Also, regarding the apology, I've reread it, and I think it's a possibility that Franken doesn't even remember doing this (because it didn't happen) and he was simply conceding what he thinks the photograph undoubtedly shows. ~ Patrick at November 21, 2017 8:18 AM

It may be possible he had it photoshopped later - logistically difficult unless he knew the photographer and could have it added to the CD before Tweeden got her copy. If true, that raises the possibility the his brother, Owen, did actually take it.

But Franken does not deny the photograph. That leads me to believe that if it was photoshopped, he was in on it or knew about it.

Also, there is a photograph of the kiss, and Franken, contrary to Tweeden's statement is most definitely not grabbing her by her head.... ~ Patrick at November 21, 2017 8:18 AM

That photograph is of a different kiss. Tweededn is describing Franken's actions at a time when she says they were alone, thus no photographer present.

That makes it a he said / she said incident.

Convenient? Perhaps, especially for Franken who has a habit of committing his gropings publicly and saying "it was a joke" when called on them.

...nor does she look like she's resisting at all. In fact, it looks like she's enjoying it, like she appears to enjoying every other incident of her pawing various men at this event. ~ Patrick at November 21, 2017 8:18 AM

I've noticed in past posts, Patrick, that you have an almost Puritanical contempt for women who flaunt their sexuality, through dress or actions. Not sure if that's in play here with your characterization of Tweeden as "a lying, hypocritical tramp" or if you're a fan of Franken's politics and resent seeing him hoist by his own petard.

...if you're going to take a picture of your wife with a Senator, and that Senator intentionally puts a hand on your wife's ass, what do you do? Just go ahead and take the picture anyway? ~ Patrick at November 21, 2017 8:18 AM

The second woman said her husband had no view of the fondling and was not told of it until later.

In addition, the picture does not show below the chest, so he would not have seen the grope through the viewfinder.

I'm also familiar with the fact that scandalous accusations generate a a level of publicity that can be a wonderful thing to revive a flagging career or inject some excitement into an otherwise humdrum life. And the best ones are ones that are close to true and that cannot be disproven, i.e., at least 10 years in the past with little-to-no evidence or proof. ~ Conan the Grammarian at November 21, 2017 7:22 AM

I'm referring to making scandalous accusations with little or no proof as a means of capturing the spotlight.

I just re-read that and realized I was kinda vague on whose career was getting revived.

A Marxist takes off the mask.

> "The Ronco Congressional Problematic!

Verily, the mechanism is precisely that tawdry.

...Equivocation & evasion...

You guys knew that. Because we're all out of Junior High now, right?

Right?

Ever'buddy?

Sure.

The Clinton Body Count appears to be a work in progress.

Conan: That photograph is of a different kiss. Tweededn is describing Franken's actions at a time when she says they were alone, thus no photographer present.

That makes it a he said / she said incident.

Which makes it at least doubtful. I've never done a USO show, but I've been involved in enough technical aspects of various productions to know that a "time when they were alone together" rehearsing didn't happen. There is always several someones present serving in some technical capacity. If techies weren't there, the actors wouldn't have been allowed on the set. Techs always have to be there, in case something goes wrong. And if it's not in a facility they can lock, they install perimeter guards. The equipment is simply far too expensive and potentially dangerous to risk anything happening to it.

Conan: I've noticed in past posts, Patrick, that you have an almost Puritanical contempt for women who flaunt their sexuality, through dress or actions. Not sure if that's in play here with your characterization of Tweeden as "a lying, hypocritical tramp" or if you're a fan of Franken's politics and resent seeing him hoist by his own petard.

I've noticed, my sanctimonious co-poster, that you cannot resist a chance at the personal attack when you have the opportunity to claim the moral high ground. It's not, strictly speaking, ad hominem, since once you get past your self-righteous tirading, you do eventually get to the point of the argument.

Perhaps, once you get over smarting about how you just got called out for misrepresenting the Snopes link you posted, you could actually look at the words you quoted of mine. As you pointed out, I called her a "a lying, hypocritical tramp," which I will stand by.

Let's focus on the second adjective, hypocritical. She claims to feel so aggrieved and so violated by Franken's unwitnessed aggression. Not even Franken himself, who has invited his own ethics investigation, claims to remember that.

I don't have much sympathy for someone who finds it impossible to keep their hands to themselves, then claims to be offended when they're treated like the whore they insist on playing.

Maybe if you could just stop white-knighting long enough to recognize that she is the beneficiary of a double-standard which dictates that men are supposed to love being pawed at and prodded by women, but scream "Sexual harassment!" when they get back precisely what they think they have the right to do to others.

When Leeann went twerking up to that performer and grabbed his ass, I must have missed the part where she asked his permission. Then she has the nerve to sob that she feels violated.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that it is extremely unlikely that each and every one of her antics were captured on film. So, do we know for a fact that each and every man she put her hands, buttocks, lips and God knows what else upon was okay with this? Not one man was bothered by this at all?

Maybe someone should have just told her to fuck off, and, failing in this, sent her packing with a throbbing, red handprint on her face. Outraged? I'm sure you are. But what she did was sexual assault and you have the right to use force to protect yourself from it.

Finally, as for Franken's politics, I agree with some his points, others not so much. But one of the things I remember from his first book, "Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Idiot, and Other Observations," is that a raised a valid point about the rampant hypocrisy among Republicans who claim they are "family values." And he absolutely couldn't resist the delectable Newt Gingrich cancer-striken spouse story, especially while attending an event where Ralph Reed introduced Newt Gingrich as being "pro-family before pro-family was cool," leaving Al to wonder if pro-family became cool before or after Newt was receiving blowjobs from the wife of a fellow college professor.

Anyhow, while discussing the very impressive number of sexual experiences claimed by Magic Johnson, Al gave a disclosure of his own, saying that while his number of sexual experiences doesn't quite measure up to Magic Johnson's, he was certain you'll be impressed.

"I have had approximately [a number that doesn't even come close to Magic Johnson's] sexual experiences. All of them with my wife, Franni."

So, Al never really struck me as a lecherous horndog type. While he freely admits to using drugs on the set of SNL, and he's gone from rabid homophobe to gay rights supporter, I never saw any reason to believe he was a typical oversexed Hollywood male.

So, on the one hand you have a rampant, uncontrollable trull whose flirtations didn't just approach sexual assault, they brazenly stomped right across the line and dared anyone to object.

Then you have Al Franken, who is so reserved in his public conduct that you might suspect he was asexual.

To say nothing of the timing and Leeann's associations. And the fact that Al Franken had a media escort with him the entire time (who has come forward), and doesn't seem to know when this invasive kiss at a time when they were alone actually occurred.

Guess which side I'm taking in this?

A Marxist takes off the mask.

Should ask the author if he is aware of the environmental mess that the Soviet Union left behind in the Soviet republics as well as the various Warsaw Pact nations?

I'm thinking the answer is "no".

Conan: Snopes disagrees.

Snopes is a piece of shit site.

It used to be a good fact checker but they outright lie these days.

Ever read their page on gun crime rates in Australia?

Claim: gun crime went up after ban

First they reword the claim to make it seem like crime rates continue to rise when the claim was there was a spike that began to fall at the same rate crime was already falling by

They claim this is false, then spend multiple paragraphs detailing the fall in gun suicide rates, claims this proves there was no bumb in other crimes and then provide a graph compiled by the Australian government that LITERALLY SHOWS IN INCREASE IN ALL CRIME RATES

https://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Ah, Patrick, I see you're back to your old tricks, "...but my exact words were...." and "you didn't respond to the exact words, so you're wrong, and stupid."

I've noticed, my sanctimonious co-poster, that you cannot resist a chance at the personal attack when you have the opportunity to claim the moral high ground. ~ Patrick at November 21, 2017 1:02 PM

No personal attack, just an observation. You have the right to be near-Puritanical if you want to be. Hell, society might be better off if more of us were.

And I claim no moral high ground. You've already staked it out, impugning my character many times since I've been on this blog.

Embarrassed? You should be. ~ Patrick at November 21, 2017 5:57 AM

Only in that I attempted to deal with you as if you were an adult.

So, on the one hand you have a rampant, uncontrollable trull.... ~ Patrick at November 21, 2017 1:02 PM

You may be a hypersensitive and Puritanical little prick, but you do have a nice vocabulary.

...but did Anita Hill emphatically deny having any contact with Clarence Thomas the way Leeann denied having any contact with Al?

Yes. Until the phone logs were produced, she denied calling Thomas after the alleged harassment that so offended her that she subsequently followed him from the Education Department to the EEOC.

Now, I'm not an expert in the psychology of harassment victims, so maybe there is a precedent for Hill's dependency; perhaps even for Tweeden's floozy behavior so soon after she said she was tongue-raped by Franken.

The single most damning piece of evidence offered to bolster Tweeden's claim is the photograph and Franken's acceptance of it as factual.

Most harassment claims require at least one corroborating witness. Tweeden does not have one. But she has a photo of an unrelated but similar act for which Franken himself has issued a public apology, lending the rehearsal story at least some credibility despite his denial of it.

Since Tweeden claims this was part of her package of photographs from the tour, someone should be able to check the tour's official photographs for another copy of it. That would settle the whole photoshop debate.

And now, another woman has come forward to claim Franken groped her. She accused Franken on her Facebook page, shortly after the incident, of groping her and called him a "creeper."

All in all, you can see where Tweeden's story, despite speculation about photoshopping, has attained at least some credibility. Enough to stand up in court? No. But, as we are reminded daily by Democrats, that's not the standard that should be applied in these cases.

Does Franken deserve to be lumped in with Harvey Weinstein et al? No. Not at all. His antics were mostly childish and immature. Should he be removed from the Senate? Nah. The Senate has enabled far too many sex offenders to get self-righteous about it now. Minnesotans can decide in 2020 if they want Franken to continue representing them.

Jesus Christ sexually harassed me.

God sexually harassed me.

Conan: Ah, Patrick, I see you're back to your old tricks, "...but my exact words were...." and "you didn't respond to the exact words, so you're wrong, and stupid."

I'm sorry. Did you complain at some point that I've been impugning your character? #hypocrisy

No, I simply don't like painstakingly explaining my positions, only to have it distorted or misrepresented despite my best efforts. I edit my posts as I write them, and try to be careful about my choice of words. So, when I have to clarify my position, despite already having made my best effort, I'm not nice about it.

And for some reason, despite your intelligence, you tend to be the most egregious offender. Maybe it's a cultural thing. Perhaps in our respective parts of the United States, certain things are reasonably inferred that are not understood in the other.

Conan: You may be a hypersensitive and Puritanical little prick, but you do have a nice vocabulary.

Thank you, but I don't consider it Puritanical. Someone on Facebook accused me of slut-shaming. I unfriended and blocked in response.

I honestly don't care what Leeann does at USO shows, as long as everyone's consenting. I would consider it ill-advised, because since you can't assess the temperament of every man there, you run the risk of pissing someone off.

I do know this: if I had been there, I would not have been okay with anyone, man or woman, touching me in this manner. And I also that if this did happen, I would have to put up with it, or risk having my buddies make fun of me for weeks on end because I didn't appreciate her attention.

I would consider this, not slut-shaming, but hypocrisy-shaming. Let's use an example, taking women out of this, since you're determined to impugn my character with an accusation of sexism that you aren't even trying to disguise.

Suppose two gay guys are in a club dancing. And suppose one of them (let's call him Chad) decides to raunch it up a bit. He grabs his dance partner (let's call him Steve) by the buttocks, pulls him in close and they start to grind their genitals together (through clothing, of course). Steve goes along with this, then gets behind Chad and starts performing a few thrusts to suggest anal sex.

Chad suddenly becomes mortified, and storms off the dance floor, sobbing to his friends about how violated he feels.

Chad is obviously a hypocrite. He set the rules for this dance, then cries when the rules he laid down are applied to him.

Leeann is like Chad. Or she would be, if Chad not only performed lewd dance moves on Steve, but went around the dance floor, performing similarly suggestive moves on Irving, Reggie, Max, Joe, Thomas, Cody, and Jimmy.

I think most people despise hypocrisy, so I'm not alone in that regard. You don't get to plant kisses on men you don't even know and didn't ask permission from, twerk against a performer, then grab his ass while he's trying to perform a song, then sob about how violated you feel when someone pretends to grab your breasts and doesn't even make contact with you.

If she truly feels violated, then she needs to get to a shrink to help her establish consistent boundaries and respecting those of others.

I also feel that she took advantage of a double-standard. Again, men are supposed to feel flattered when being sexually assaulted by women, but women reserve the right to feel violated and even get someone arrested if a man were to do the same thing to her.

I loathe double-standards, particularly those that work against me. Perhaps I should broaden my perspective and be more sensitive to double-standards that harm other people, but if I don't stand up for my own interests, who will?

I know from an extremely unpleasant experience in high school that embarrassed and upset me thoroughly about the kinds of things that are expected of me as a man. If a woman sexually assaults me, I have no right to object. I have to play along and pretend to be flattered, or else my male friends will shame me from now until the end of time.

What nice vocabulary? You liked the word "trull"? The dictionary defines it as "prostitute." While accurate, this doesn't go deeply enough. A courtesan, of course, is a woman who has mastered all the arts of refinement, grace and delicacy suited to entertain even royalty, and who happens to be a prostitute.

A trull, by contrast is the other extreme. Think homeless, slovenly woman missing most of her teeth who makes loud, braying offers to give you a blowjob for a dollar. I don't know if that's truly accurate, but in every instance I've seen the word, that is what's implied, if not outright stated. Perhaps it has more to do with the word's resemblance to "troll."

Thank you for the information on Anita Hill. I hadn't heard this, and it is at least interesting, if not outright suspicious.

Conan: Most harassment claims require at least one corroborating witness. Tweeden does not have one. But she has a photo of an unrelated but similar act for which Franken himself has issued a public apology, lending the rehearsal story at least some credibility despite his denial of it.

I wouldn't say that Franken exactly denied it. Or if he did, he did it in the most gentlemanly way I've ever seen.

He apologized for leaving Leeann feeling violated, but further stated that he doesn't remember the incident like she does.

Franken has already been caught stating that women who come forward should be believed. Franken, I believe, is not conceding that this actually happened, but wants to, at the same time, be respectful and considerate of a woman who comes forward.

I believe, as this goes on, we will learn that she is not deserving of his consideration.

And I think the picture will ultimately be proven to be shopped. I don't believe this incident even happened, but like everyone else, Franken is taken in by the picture and is being forced to admit that this happened, even if he doesn't remember doing it.

Reminds me of that strange photo of Lee H. Oswald holding a rifle and a newspaper. Weird shadows, strange angles, just seemed ... off.

And then along came 3D digital technology and whoops - not faked.

Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?

Trifecta. Hat-trick. The Trey.

It's difficult to be concerned for opinions so needful of affirmation.

Patrick, you've written 3,384 words on this today, beginning with "lying, hypocritical tramp." That wasn't an ironic take on postmodern feminism or anything, That's how you're ready to publicly scold a woman in the 21st century... With the tone of an aggrieved, frustrated schoolmarm in the 1930's Deep South.

Go nuts. Persuade... We read you, Lil' Pilgrim.

Such nice people . . .

Sick! Liberals Threaten Violence Against Girl Trump Supporter Over Video of Her Happy Reaction to Going to Trump Rally

. . . if they can even be called "liberals."

Crid: Patrick, you've written 3,384 words on this today

Which would be about half the length of one of your posts. Only in less flowery language.

As I pointed out, Conan is notorious for misconstruing what I'm saying. I don't think it's intentional, but for whatever reason, it happens with him most often. So, I take extra pains to make sure he gets it.

As I pointed out, Conan is notorious for misconstruing what I'm saying. ~ Patrick at November 21, 2017 7:12 PM

Oh no, Patrick. I don't misconstrue a damned thing you're saying. I get it. I got you from the beginning.

You nit pick exact words and complain about being misconstrued as a distraction.

You insist everyone get your words exactly right, missing the forest for the trees. I suspect you go through all aspects of your life that way. It's why you have to unfriend people on Facebook and Twitter when they don't acknowledge the scope of your greatness.

You're not stupid, but you are brittle and don't take it well when people disagree with you. You get defensive and your arguments devolve into nitpicking diatribes about being misquoted which, to you, negates any criticism or disagreement, leaving you able to claim victory. Not because your argument prevailed, but because you were misconstrued, so your critic was wrong from the outset.

Social media sites let you disconnect and block anyone, so you like to block people who criticize you and then relive your petty victories over your critics on these media, like Queeg with the strawberries.

Frustrated 1930s school marm? That's a pretty accurate description of our Patrick.

Bye, Felic ... er, Patrick.

Time for . . .

Control Freak News of the Day!

"Brittle" is a great word. The Onion used it with incisive effect to mock Hollywood obsessives a few years ago.

Lately I've been too reliant on the word "trite"... So very much of social media political commentary can be described with it.

But it's not enough! Shallow yet self-inflating goofs *believe* their own puffery... It's not enough to describe it as simplistic song-songing.

Oh no, Patrick. I don't misconstrue a damned thing you're saying.

Not necessarily this time, but you do, and have done so in the past. Moreso than others. There have only been two others, besides you, that have done this. However, these other two (whom I will not name; you can guess, but I will not confirm or deny) do this to troll me. You... I don't know exactly what your motivations are. Maybe you get bored reading my posts and make assumptive leaps about my intent to sort of fast-forward through them.

You nit pick exact words and complain about being misconstrued as a distraction.

No, Conan, misconstruing someone's argument, then attacking the Frankenstein argument you've created is known as "strawmanning" someone. It is not nitpicking to correct someone who is not representing your position correctly.

I know of no one who likes being misconstrued. If I ever meet someone like this, I promise I will invite them to this blog and introduce the two of you. It will be match made in heaven.

And being strawmanned does not allow me to claim victory. It does, however, give me the right to complain that I did not say what you're accusing me off. And that you haven't even addressed my point. That is the only proper response to being strawmanned.

Conan:

It's why you have to unfriend people on Facebook and Twitter when they don't acknowledge the scope of your greatness.

Social media sites let you disconnect and block anyone, so you like to block people who criticize you and then relive your petty victories over your critics on these media, like Queeg with the strawberries.

And here comes the strawman. A textbook example, Conan. Surprise me. Admit you just misrepresented me, then learn something from it.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner. Right here. A perfect example of you strawmanning me.

I admitted I did this just today, to one person. When did I say I did this regularly? Or that I like doing this?

I didn't.

I said I blocked one person today. I didn't mention ever doing this at any other time, but you just inferred that I like doing this, that I do it often, and that my Facebook wall must be littered with discussion about how I love doing this to people, assuming victory for doing so and crowing over these imagined victories on my Facebook wall.

From this assumption, you then make assumptions about my character, and accuse me of being brittle.

To be blunt, I think that's projection. Nothing I said in my previous post merits this tantrum you're having now.

I could friend you on Facebook, then let you look at my wall. I would challenge you to find a single post in which I did something like this, and let you go back as far as you like.

The last time I blocked anyone prior to this was a little over a year ago, (Facebook's block list doesn't tell you when you blocked someone, but I do know it was prior to the election).

She apparently didn't appreciate my stance on immigration. As I recall, I simply was pointing out the hell that Muslim immigrants are inflicting on Europe and pointed out that they would be ill-suited to American society, as evinced by their failure to adapt to European society.

She got a little melodramatic, insisting that she didn't want to have to unfriend me, but that I was saying racist things. I told her to go ahead and unfriend me. She did, and I took the next logical step and blocked her. I'm glad I did and I have no intention of ever unblocking her. Self-righteous Pharisee.

And this is the first and only time I've ever discussed with anyone why I blocked this person. I don't particularly enjoy telling that story, but you seem like you wanted to hear one, so I didn't want to disappoint you.

And I didn't even mention blocking a single person on Twitter. But somehow, you inferred all kinds things about my Twitter account. How do you even know I have a Twitter account? (I do, but I don't remember mentioning it to you.)

There, Conan. You see it? Right here! A perfect example of you strawmanning me. Clear, unimpeachable evidence that you seem to get off strawmanning me.

I told you I blocked exactly one person today on Facebook. From this, you inferred that I do this regularly, my motivations for doing this, that I enjoy doing this, that I discuss it prolifically on my Facebook wall and inferred things about my character from this.

Have you ever thought about applying for work at a supermarket tabloid?

The only way this could be a better example of your promiscuous strawmanning would be if this topic had some relevance to the discussion at hand.

But, you're busted, Conan. Irrefutable and unimpeachable evidence that you have committed a strawman.

Surprise me. Learn something from this.

4,273. That's almost the Declaration of Independence three times.

But not as good.

I told you I blocked exactly one person today on Facebook. ~ Patrick at November 22, 2017 1:05 AM

That's today, or yesterday really. A while back, about a year ago IIRC, you also told us about blocking a person on Facebook. So, two people in about a year.

While your two in a year is lower by half than the four per year a recent Daily Mirror poll found is the average for the UK, it's two more than I've ever blocked so, yeah, I remembered it and extrapolated a pattern from it.
________________________________________

How do you even know I have a Twitter account? ~ Patrick at November 22, 2017 1:05 AM

Well, let's see, you've bragged in the past about schooling people in arguments you've had on Twitter as well as Facebook. You're always right, they're always wrong, yada yada yada.

I tweeted a response to Ijeoma Oluo. I said, "Listen very closely: You are not special. You are not privileged. You do not get to choose days when men can't respond to you." ~ Patrick at March 9, 2017 2:30 PM

Unless you can tweet without a Twitter account, you've got a Twitter account.
________________________________________

...you then make assumptions about my character, and accuse me of being brittle. ~ Patrick at November 22, 2017 1:05 AM

4,273 words.
________________________________________

Learn something from this. ~ Patrick at November 22, 2017 1:05 AM

Well, I've learned that trying to have an adult discussion with you is pointless. So, I've got that going for me.

You know, Conan the Strawmanarian, when you find yourself in a hole, the rule is: Stop digging!

That's today, or yesterday really. A while back, about a year ago IIRC, you also told us about blocking a person on Facebook. So, two people in about a year.

While your two in a year is lower by half than the four per year a recent Daily Mirror poll found is the average for the UK, it's two more than I've ever blocked so, yeah, I remembered it and extrapolated a pattern from it.

So, with a sampling of two instances, over the course of a year (if I assume that your memory serves), you extrapolated a pattern.

Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?

To say nothing of the fact that from this, you decided that "It's why you have to unfriend people on Facebook and Twitter when they don't acknowledge the scope of your greatness.

"Social media sites let you disconnect and block anyone, so you like to block people who criticize you and then relive your petty victories over your critics on these media, like Queeg with the strawberries."

Ah, so from a sampling of two instances over the course of a year (which, by the way, you admit, is below average), you've come to the dazzlingly brilliant conclusion that my Facebook wall is just littered with me crowing over my "petty victories," and that these are things I "like" to do.

Frankly, I get more satisfaction when I cause others to block me (which is what happened when I informed whoever-it-was that she has no right to decide when men are allowed to respond to her Tweets), but that's not the point.

Statistics 101: two instances over the course of a year is far, far, far too small a sampling to draw any supportable conclusions.

Queue Conan's whinetrack: "Stop calling me stupid. Waaaah!"

Stop giving me cause.