• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Game, Set, Match (WaPo's Grab Them By The Pussy Tape)

So I have always agreed with many conservative/right principles, particularly fiscal. Over the year, the religious right's influence has moved me away from the Republican party.

Today, I read Rush Limbaugh's comments and I need some help. I am seeking to understand.

"You know what the magic word, the only thing that matters in American sexual mores today is? One thing," the conservative commentator said, according to audio released by Media Matters for America. "You can do anything — the left will promote and understand and tolerate anything — as long as there is one element. Do you know what it is? Consent. If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it's perfectly fine. Whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there's no consent in part of the equation, then here come the rape police. But consent is the magic key to the left."

This was not in the Onion, btw.

Can someone explain?

I was actually listening to this. :couch:

He went on to say that liberals say its fine to get the dog to consent, horse, etc. He was trying to say that consent has surpassed morality thanks to the liberals and Bill Clinton in an effort to pass the blame for Trump's comments to liberals. Ironically, Trump had neither consent nor morals.
 
There's so much idiocy there I'm unsure where to start. I'll just say that animals can't consent under our legal system and every "liberal" I've had a conversation about sexual assault with who used "consent" as their litmus for whether it was rape or not has generally started with the legal use of the term "consent" as a jumping off point.
 
Abortion? Make it illegal.

Rape? Cool.

Rape was legal before it was not. For example, "spousal rape" was only finally fully outlawed in the US in 1993. If we are turning back the clock to "Make American Great AGAIN" legal rape may be on the table.
 
Rape was legal before it was not. For example, "spousal rape" was only finally fully outlawed in the US in 1993. If we are turning back the clock to "Make American Great AGAIN" legal rape may be on the table.

Rape was illegal before it was legal before it was illegal. The great American Geoffrey Chaucer was charged with rape in the fourteenth century.
 
Wife of Bath?

Nice memory! And yes, the WB's tale is very much one of sexual assault, albeit in the fictional world of medieval arthurian romance. However the for-real Chaucer was actually charged with rape. It's more complicated than that, obviously, but he basically paid like 10 quid and got off.
 
But if you're into the Chaucerian diegesis of this election, the "Miller's Tale" totally anticipated the whole "grabbing by the pussy" phenomenon. A couple of my colleagues have written a blog post about it that's making the rounds.
 
It's fair to call out NOW and other liberal groups for supporting Bill then. Definitely. So then why are Republicans bashing Bill now for stuff he did 20+ years ago in order to support Trump?

Just like years ago, no one seems able to address a straightforward question. I will repeat, I am not defending anyone by asking a simple question - With Bill, his exploits were deemed his personal business and so there should be no political issue or fallout. Surely, this hasn't been forgotten.

Now, since a Republican is involved, many of the news outlets, talking heads, and organizations who defended WJC, now are condeming Trump.

It is the diametrically opposite reaction to a similar issue that is the issue. Either they are both wrong or they are both given a pass. Clinton successfully defended himself by calling into question exactly what the meaning of "is" is. And, the NY Times and CNN were leading the defense in support of him. Now, they are the ones trying to destroy Trump on a similar issue.

Do you not perceive a problem and do you not recognize how prominently reactions to virtually any issue are a function of the political party involved rather than the right/wrong assessment of the issue itself?
 
Just like years ago, no one seems able to address a straightforward question. I will repeat, I am not defending anyone by asking a simple question - With Bill, his exploits were deemed his personal business and so there should be no political issue or fallout. Surely, this hasn't been forgotten.

Now, since a Republican is involved, many of the news outlets, talking heads, and organizations who defended WJC, now are condeming Trump.

It is the diametrically opposite reaction to a similar issue that is the issue. Either they are both wrong or they are both given a pass. Clinton successfully defended himself by calling into question exactly what the meaning of "is" is. And, the NY Times and CNN were leading the defense in support of him. Now, they are the ones trying to destroy Trump on a similar issue.

Do you not perceive a problem and do you not recognize how prominently reactions to virtually any issue are a function of the political party involved rather than the right/wrong assessment of the issue itself?

Whatever. You can be 110% right. But Bill Clinton is not running for President now, Donald Trump is. So even is you are 110% right, no one cares.
 
Trump was an utter and complete disaster before this ever came up. It's just the icing on the cake.
 
Props to oldman for ignoring all the legitimate answers people have provided. That's the best way to claim no one is answering your question.
 
Seriously, guys, please describe every one of your hookups in detail from the point where you made the move to the point where you actually touched some boob or box (or cock, if that's your thing). I really want to hear all about those parts where you got consent before every grope because apparently you didn't just go with the flow and take educated guesses before making those moves. Either you guys live in a monastery or these holier than thou standards you are applying clearly don't apply to yourself. If you have never had a discussion with friends about pussy that was at least as lewd as what Trump was spewing, then you likely don't have any friends either. It doesn't matter if you had such discussions when you were 20 versus 58 or whatever Trump was in 2005. What you are saying is that a lewd discussion about grabbing pussy is tantamount to sexual assault or advocating sexual assault and it clearly is not. Spare me the obnoxious moralizing. You guys sound like a bunch of fucking Republicans or something.

What this is is Trump haters from the left and right going apeshit for political reasons. Perhaps my hatred of both Trump and Hillary allows me to see that a bit better than you bozos, most of whom are as eager to assume the worst about me as they are about Trump simply because my politics don't align with your own little bizzaroworld utopia.

I can't keep up with these threads but with your comments I don't think we have to assume the worst about you.
 
Maybe the Trump Chumps will believe a former Miss North Carolina USA.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/13/politics/donald-trump-miss-usa-contestant/

(CNN)A former Miss USA contestant says Donald Trump personally inspected each woman prior to the contest to the point where it was "the dirtiest I felt in my entire life."

Samantha Holvey, the 2006 Miss North Carolina, told CNN that during an event in New York City in the month before the pageant, Trump personally inspected each of the contestants.
"He would step in front of each girl and look you over from head to toe like we were just meat, we were just sexual objects, that we were not people," Holvey said. "You know when a gross guy at the bar is checking you out? It's that feeling."
As a 20-year-old attending a private Southern Baptist college, she said she was not prepared for what she experienced before and during the pageant. She recalled private parties where the contestants mingled with "old, rich drunk guys ogling all over us."
At the time, she said, she told her mother what was going on. The final straw, she said, was when Trump and his wife, Melania, showed up backstage.
"He was literally walking around just looking at the girls and then he and Melania walked in," Holvey said.
They both then proceeded to a doorway that led into the dressing room where other contestants were getting ready, she said.
"I thought it was entirely inappropriate," Holvey said. "I told my mom about it. I was disgusted by the entire thing. I had no desire to win when I understood what it was all about."

Prior to the preliminary competition in the 2012 pageant, contestants remembered them parading before Trump and then meeting him onstage.
"A few nights before the preliminary show, they kicked everyone out and they wanted us to do just a runway show for Donald Trump," said a contestant, who asked not to be identified by name because she continues to volunteer at pageants. "We had to literally parade in front of him."
 
Just like years ago, no one seems able to address a straightforward question. I will repeat, I am not defending anyone by asking a simple question - With Bill, his exploits were deemed his personal business and so there should be no political issue or fallout. Surely, this hasn't been forgotten.

Now, since a Republican is involved, many of the news outlets, talking heads, and organizations who defended WJC, now are condeming Trump.

It is the diametrically opposite reaction to a similar issue that is the issue. Either they are both wrong or they are both given a pass. Clinton successfully defended himself by calling into question exactly what the meaning of "is" is. And, the NY Times and CNN were leading the defense in support of him. Now, they are the ones trying to destroy Trump on a similar issue.

Do you not perceive a problem and do you not recognize how prominently reactions to virtually any issue are a function of the political party involved rather than the right/wrong assessment of the issue itself?

I think one difference is that people were referring to Clinton's infidelity (not rape/assault) as a personal matter. Do we have proof of Clinton bragging about sexual assault? They both have unproven accusations of assault and rape. Only one has been recorded promoting his own exploits of sexual assault. I don't think that is a trivial difference.
 
Just like years ago, no one seems able to address a straightforward question. I will repeat, I am not defending anyone by asking a simple question - With Bill, his exploits were deemed his personal business and so there should be no political issue or fallout. Surely, this hasn't been forgotten.

Now, since a Republican is involved, many of the news outlets, talking heads, and organizations who defended WJC, now are condeming Trump.

It is the diametrically opposite reaction to a similar issue that is the issue. Either they are both wrong or they are both given a pass. Clinton successfully defended himself by calling into question exactly what the meaning of "is" is. And, the NY Times and CNN were leading the defense in support of him. Now, they are the ones trying to destroy Trump on a similar issue.

Do you not perceive a problem and do you not recognize how prominently reactions to virtually any issue are a function of the political party involved rather than the right/wrong assessment of the issue itself?
The biggest thing, frankly, is time. That was more than 20 years ago and a lot has changed in that time with regards to the way we as a society see and view sexual assault and/or unwanted sexual advances.

There is no chance that Bill Clinton would be elected president in 2016. This kind of stuff would absolutely cook him, same as it is doing to Trump.

FDR didn't invite black Olympic medal winners to the White House and was pretty fucking racist. He would never be elected in 2016 either.

Times change. Trump is a candidate from an era of America we have moved on from. So was Bill.
 
The biggest thing, frankly, is time. That was more than 20 years ago and a lot has changed in that time with regards to the way we as a society see and view sexual assault and/or unwanted sexual advances.

There is no chance that Bill Clinton would be elected president in 2016. This kind of stuff would absolutely cook him, same as it is doing to Trump.

FDR didn't invite black Olympic medal winners to the White House and was pretty fucking racist. He would never be elected in 2016 either.

Times change. Trump is a candidate from an era of America we have moved in from. So was Bill.

Yeah, that's total bullshit. The only thing that changed was the party of the person being accused. Way back 20+ years ago (apparently in the dark ages before Democrats knew they should be opposed to sexual assault, to hear it told), Congressional Democrats grilled RJ's uncle for alleging asking Anita Hill an inappropriate question. Litters of kittens were had about far, far less than Bill Clinton was accused of. Just own up the shillage and move on.
 
Yeah, that's total bullshit. The only thing that changed was the party of the person being accused. Way back 20+ years ago (apparently in the dark ages before Democrats knew they should be opposed to sexual assault, to hear it told), Congressional Democrats grilled RJ's uncle for alleging asking Anita Hill an inappropriate question. Litters of kittens were had about far, far less than Bill Clinton was accused of. Just own up the shillage and move on.

Lash out. EMOTE!
 
The allegations I remember against Clinton when he was running was that he had affairs. That he was being a horndog. The more serious allegations came around impeachment time.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top