Time to give Al Franken the boot - Here's how:

[HappyJoy]

The Democrats are playing the same hypocritical game on this stuff as are the Republicans.

However, let's take a sane moment, just for fun, on that Franken photo.

1. Was he being really, really, really childish and sophomoric doing that? Yes.
2. Was he most likely just playing to the testosterone-filled crowd in a stupid, light-hearted moment? Yes.
   
3. Is there a guy here who hasn't seen something pretty similar, or maybe even a bit dumber, in real life? No.
4. Was he groping her? No.
5. Was he only pretending to grab her tits, because he knew he might wake her if he touched them? Yes.
6. Did he quickly take his hands away and move back after the photo was taken? Most likely.
7. Would he have deserved a slap in the face if she had woken up? Sure, you bet.
8. Would this merit intervention by the law in any way, in real life? No.

This feigned outrage is silly.
.

Wrong on 4: He was groping.

On 8: If she called the police and asked to have him arrested, they would have arrested him.

Let's get this on the record, then.

If that were your son in the photo instead of Franken, you would have executed a citizen's arrest on the spot or would have had him arrested when you landed.

Is that correct?
.

That's a stupid question. Most parents wouldn't turn their kids in if they had committed murder. That's how parental love works. It's not objective.

The bottom line is that what he did is a crime for which he could have been arrested.

Really? If your kid murdered somebody you wouldn't turn them in?

You guys and that famous faux Christian morality I hear so much about.

 

[Lewdog]

Not to mention she is wearing a kevlar vest.

Great excuse, right?

It's not exactly a rape if you wear a condom.

Wrong, not even close to the same, and sadly, I'm not sure if you are smart enough to realize it or not.

You're not smart enough to realize you're trying to exuse sexual assault purely because Franken is a Dim.

I hate to tell you this, but you can't think for other people, and define what they view something, that is counter to what something is defined as.

The problem is that you can't think. I can look at a photo and see that Franken is touching the woman's breasts. Your opinion of the matter doesn't change what the photo actually shows.

He's not touching her breasts. That's the issue here, you don't understand what Kevlar and perspective is.

 

[bripat9643]

The Democrats are playing the same hypocritical game on this stuff as are the Republicans.

However, let's take a sane moment, just for fun, on that Franken photo.

1. Was he being really, really, really childish and sophomoric doing that? Yes.
2. Was he most likely just playing to the testosterone-filled crowd in a stupid, light-hearted moment? Yes.
   
3. Is there a guy here who hasn't seen something pretty similar, or maybe even a bit dumber, in real life? No.
4. Was he groping her? No.
5. Was he only pretending to grab her tits, because he knew he might wake her if he touched them? Yes.
6. Did he quickly take his hands away and move back after the photo was taken? Most likely.
7. Would he have deserved a slap in the face if she had woken up? Sure, you bet.
8. Would this merit intervention by the law in any way, in real life? No.

This feigned outrage is silly.
.

Wrong on 4: He was groping.

On 8: If she called the police and asked to have him arrested, they would have arrested him.

Let's get this on the record, then.

If that were your son in the photo instead of Franken, you would have executed a citizen's arrest on the spot or would have had him arrested when you landed.

Is that correct?
.

That's a stupid question. Most parents wouldn't turn their kids in if they had committed murder. That's how parental love works. It's not objective.

The bottom line is that what he did is a crime for which he could have been arrested.

Really? If your kid murdered somebody you wouldn't turn them in?

You guys and that famous faux Christian morality I hear so much about.

I don't really know what I would do. Would you turn yours in? What if you thought he was innocent?

 

[HappyJoy]

The Democrats are playing the same hypocritical game on this stuff as are the Republicans.

However, let's take a sane moment, just for fun, on that Franken photo.

1. Was he being really, really, really childish and sophomoric doing that? Yes.
2. Was he most likely just playing to the testosterone-filled crowd in a stupid, light-hearted moment? Yes.
   
3. Is there a guy here who hasn't seen something pretty similar, or maybe even a bit dumber, in real life? No.
4. Was he groping her? No.
5. Was he only pretending to grab her tits, because he knew he might wake her if he touched them? Yes.
6. Did he quickly take his hands away and move back after the photo was taken? Most likely.
7. Would he have deserved a slap in the face if she had woken up? Sure, you bet.
8. Would this merit intervention by the law in any way, in real life? No.

This feigned outrage is silly.
.

Wrong on 4: He was groping.

On 8: If she called the police and asked to have him arrested, they would have arrested him.

Let's get this on the record, then.

If that were your son in the photo instead of Franken, you would have executed a citizen's arrest on the spot or would have had him arrested when you landed.

Is that correct?
.

That's a stupid question. Most parents wouldn't turn their kids in if they had committed murder. That's how parental love works. It's not objective.

The bottom line is that what he did is a crime for which he could have been arrested.

Really? If your kid murdered somebody you wouldn't turn them in?

You guys and that famous faux Christian morality I hear so much about.

I don't really know what I would do. Would you turn yours in? What if you thought he was innocent?

You said 'if they had committed murder' and hell yes I would turn them in.

 

[bripat9643]

Great excuse, right?

It's not exactly a rape if you wear a condom.

Wrong, not even close to the same, and sadly, I'm not sure if you are smart enough to realize it or not.

You're not smart enough to realize you're trying to exuse sexual assault purely because Franken is a Dim.

I hate to tell you this, but you can't think for other people, and define what they view something, that is counter to what something is defined as.

The problem is that you can't think. I can look at a photo and see that Franken is touching the woman's breasts. Your opinion of the matter doesn't change what the photo actually shows.

He's not touching her breasts. That's the issue here, you don't understand what Kevlar and perspective is.

You're argueing that if she has cloths on, then it's not sexual assault. I can't imagine anything more disningenuous or idiotic.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong on 4: He was groping.

On 8: If she called the police and asked to have him arrested, they would have arrested him.

Let's get this on the record, then.

If that were your son in the photo instead of Franken, you would have executed a citizen's arrest on the spot or would have had him arrested when you landed.

Is that correct?
.

That's a stupid question. Most parents wouldn't turn their kids in if they had committed murder. That's how parental love works. It's not objective.

The bottom line is that what he did is a crime for which he could have been arrested.

Really? If your kid murdered somebody you wouldn't turn them in?

You guys and that famous faux Christian morality I hear so much about.

I don't really know what I would do. Would you turn yours in? What if you thought he was innocent?

You said 'if they had committed murder' and hell yes I would turn them in.

Sure you would.

 

[Lewdog]

The Democrats are playing the same hypocritical game on this stuff as are the Republicans.

However, let's take a sane moment, just for fun, on that Franken photo.

1. Was he being really, really, really childish and sophomoric doing that? Yes.
2. Was he most likely just playing to the testosterone-filled crowd in a stupid, light-hearted moment? Yes.
   
3. Is there a guy here who hasn't seen something pretty similar, or maybe even a bit dumber, in real life? No.
4. Was he groping her? No.
5. Was he only pretending to grab her tits, because he knew he might wake her if he touched them? Yes.
6. Did he quickly take his hands away and move back after the photo was taken? Most likely.
7. Would he have deserved a slap in the face if she had woken up? Sure, you bet.
8. Would this merit intervention by the law in any way, in real life? No.

This feigned outrage is silly.
.

Wrong on 4: He was groping.

On 8: If she called the police and asked to have him arrested, they would have arrested him.

Let's get this on the record, then.

If that were your son in the photo instead of Franken, you would have executed a citizen's arrest on the spot or would have had him arrested when you landed.

Is that correct?
.

That's a stupid question. Most parents wouldn't turn their kids in if they had committed murder. That's how parental love works. It's not objective.

The bottom line is that what he did is a crime for which he could have been arrested.

Now THAT is a stupid thing to say. Parents turn their kids in ALL the time when they know they did something wrong, especially something like murder.

You LOVE to speak in these absolutes, and it makes you look like a fool.

Some do, but most don't. Can't you list any recent cases where the parents turned in the perp? I can't.

Hmm how about you get on the ol' interwebz and put in one of them there search doo-hickies "Parents turn in son to police" or "Parents turn daughter to police," and see all the stories that come up. When you do remember that those are the severe cases, and not just the ones for crimes like theft, vandalism, and drugs... and then tell me how it doesn't happen.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong on 4: He was groping.

On 8: If she called the police and asked to have him arrested, they would have arrested him.

Let's get this on the record, then.

If that were your son in the photo instead of Franken, you would have executed a citizen's arrest on the spot or would have had him arrested when you landed.

Is that correct?
.

That's a stupid question. Most parents wouldn't turn their kids in if they had committed murder. That's how parental love works. It's not objective.

The bottom line is that what he did is a crime for which he could have been arrested.

Now THAT is a stupid thing to say. Parents turn their kids in ALL the time when they know they did something wrong, especially something like murder.

You LOVE to speak in these absolutes, and it makes you look like a fool.

Some do, but most don't. Can't you list any recent cases where the parents turned in the perp? I can't.

Hmm how about you get on the ol' interwebz and put in one of them there search doo-hickies "Parents turn in son to police" or "Parents turn daughter to police," and see all the stories that come up. When you do remember that those are the severe cases, and not just the ones for crimes like theft, vandalism, and drugs... and then tell me how it doesn't happen.

I didn't say it doesn't happen.

Nice strawman, douchebag.

 

[Lewdog]

Wrong, not even close to the same, and sadly, I'm not sure if you are smart enough to realize it or not.

You're not smart enough to realize you're trying to exuse sexual assault purely because Franken is a Dim.

I hate to tell you this, but you can't think for other people, and define what they view something, that is counter to what something is defined as.

The problem is that you can't think. I can look at a photo and see that Franken is touching the woman's breasts. Your opinion of the matter doesn't change what the photo actually shows.

He's not touching her breasts. That's the issue here, you don't understand what Kevlar and perspective is.

You're argueing that if she has cloths on, then it's not sexual assault. I can't imagine anything more disningenuous or idiotic.

A Kevlar vest isn't just clothes. Do you not know what a Kevlar vest is? I mean, you've at least played a video game with them in it right?

 

[Lewdog]

Let's get this on the record, then.

If that were your son in the photo instead of Franken, you would have executed a citizen's arrest on the spot or would have had him arrested when you landed.

Is that correct?
.

That's a stupid question. Most parents wouldn't turn their kids in if they had committed murder. That's how parental love works. It's not objective.

The bottom line is that what he did is a crime for which he could have been arrested.

Now THAT is a stupid thing to say. Parents turn their kids in ALL the time when they know they did something wrong, especially something like murder.

You LOVE to speak in these absolutes, and it makes you look like a fool.

Some do, but most don't. Can't you list any recent cases where the parents turned in the perp? I can't.

Hmm how about you get on the ol' interwebz and put in one of them there search doo-hickies "Parents turn in son to police" or "Parents turn daughter to police," and see all the stories that come up. When you do remember that those are the severe cases, and not just the ones for crimes like theft, vandalism, and drugs... and then tell me how it doesn't happen.

I didn't say it doesn't happen.

Nice strawman, douchebag.

You said "most," that is bullshit, and you got caught trying to over sensationalize it.

 

[bripat9643]

You're not smart enough to realize you're trying to exuse sexual assault purely because Franken is a Dim.

I hate to tell you this, but you can't think for other people, and define what they view something, that is counter to what something is defined as.

The problem is that you can't think. I can look at a photo and see that Franken is touching the woman's breasts. Your opinion of the matter doesn't change what the photo actually shows.

He's not touching her breasts. That's the issue here, you don't understand what Kevlar and perspective is.

You're argueing that if she has cloths on, then it's not sexual assault. I can't imagine anything more disningenuous or idiotic.

A Kevlar vest isn't just clothes. Do you not know what a Kevlar vest is? I mean, you've at least played a video game with them in it right?

This line of argument is too stupid even for the dumbest of snowflakes to accept.

 

[Lewdog]

I hate to tell you this, but you can't think for other people, and define what they view something, that is counter to what something is defined as.

The problem is that you can't think. I can look at a photo and see that Franken is touching the woman's breasts. Your opinion of the matter doesn't change what the photo actually shows.

He's not touching her breasts. That's the issue here, you don't understand what Kevlar and perspective is.

You're argueing that if she has cloths on, then it's not sexual assault. I can't imagine anything more disningenuous or idiotic.

A Kevlar vest isn't just clothes. Do you not know what a Kevlar vest is? I mean, you've at least played a video game with them in it right?

This line of argument is too stupid even for the dumbest of snowflakes to accept.

Let me get this straight, you think a Kevlar vest that can is stab proof, and can stop some bullets, is the same as any other piece of clothing?

 

[bripat9643]

The problem is that you can't think. I can look at a photo and see that Franken is touching the woman's breasts. Your opinion of the matter doesn't change what the photo actually shows.

He's not touching her breasts. That's the issue here, you don't understand what Kevlar and perspective is.

You're argueing that if she has cloths on, then it's not sexual assault. I can't imagine anything more disningenuous or idiotic.

A Kevlar vest isn't just clothes. Do you not know what a Kevlar vest is? I mean, you've at least played a video game with them in it right?

This line of argument is too stupid even for the dumbest of snowflakes to accept.

Let me get this straight, you think a Kevlar vest that can is stab proof, and can stop some bullets, is the same as any other piece of clothing?

From the legal standpoint, there's no difference. Whether she can feel his touch isn't the criteria.

 

[Lewdog]

He's not touching her breasts. That's the issue here, you don't understand what Kevlar and perspective is.

You're argueing that if she has cloths on, then it's not sexual assault. I can't imagine anything more disningenuous or idiotic.

A Kevlar vest isn't just clothes. Do you not know what a Kevlar vest is? I mean, you've at least played a video game with them in it right?

This line of argument is too stupid even for the dumbest of snowflakes to accept.

Let me get this straight, you think a Kevlar vest that can is stab proof, and can stop some bullets, is the same as any other piece of clothing?

From the legal standpoint, there's no difference. Whether she can feel his touch isn't the criteria.

Can you show a legal precedent where someone was convicted or lost in a civil suit for sexual assault where they "groped" someone through a Kevlar vest?

 

[bripat9643]

You're argueing that if she has cloths on, then it's not sexual assault. I can't imagine anything more disningenuous or idiotic.

A Kevlar vest isn't just clothes. Do you not know what a Kevlar vest is? I mean, you've at least played a video game with them in it right?

This line of argument is too stupid even for the dumbest of snowflakes to accept.

Let me get this straight, you think a Kevlar vest that can is stab proof, and can stop some bullets, is the same as any other piece of clothing?

From the legal standpoint, there's no difference. Whether she can feel his touch isn't the criteria.

Can you show a legal precedent where someone was convicted or lost in a civil suit for sexual assault where they were "groped" through a Kevlar vest?

Puhleeze. How many women have ever even put on a Kevlar vest?

 

[Lewdog]

A Kevlar vest isn't just clothes. Do you not know what a Kevlar vest is? I mean, you've at least played a video game with them in it right?

This line of argument is too stupid even for the dumbest of snowflakes to accept.

Let me get this straight, you think a Kevlar vest that can is stab proof, and can stop some bullets, is the same as any other piece of clothing?

From the legal standpoint, there's no difference. Whether she can feel his touch isn't the criteria.

Can you show a legal precedent where someone was convicted or lost in a civil suit for sexual assault where they were "groped" through a Kevlar vest?

Puhleeze. How many women have ever even put on a Kevlar vest?

You made the statement, so now prove it. Doing so will take legal precedent. How many women put on a Kevlar vest? Are you seriously asking that question? Oh I dunno... millions? Women have been serving in the military since the 40's, and Kevlar was invented in the 70's... and even outside of women in the military, you have women in SWAT teams, and you have reporters who wear them in combat areas and who follow the police... and women in the police force... so yeah, actually the number is probably in the hundreds of millions. So I'm sure you can find a case of groping through a Kevlar Vest somewhere to back up your claim.

 

[mudwhistle]

The demo apologists for Franken now are just a joke at this point. No pun intended. DNC is the swamp!

Franken deserves to pay for his idiocy. But you people just fall all over yourselves kissing Moore's and Trump's ass. They also need to face the same penalties as Franken.

There needs to be no penalties for mere accusations.

This is not an accusation, but a proof:

Sorry, but even his victim has been gotten to.....and she was on "The View" yesterday completely exonerating Al Franken for his behavior.
How can we fight people that refuse to get real and face facts????

 

[mudwhistle]

You're argueing that if she has cloths on, then it's not sexual assault. I can't imagine anything more disningenuous or idiotic.

A Kevlar vest isn't just clothes. Do you not know what a Kevlar vest is? I mean, you've at least played a video game with them in it right?

This line of argument is too stupid even for the dumbest of snowflakes to accept.

Let me get this straight, you think a Kevlar vest that can is stab proof, and can stop some bullets, is the same as any other piece of clothing?

From the legal standpoint, there's no difference. Whether she can feel his touch isn't the criteria.

Can you show a legal precedent where someone was convicted or lost in a civil suit for sexual assault where they "groped" someone through a Kevlar vest?

No need....this simply proves that Al Franken probably committed the assault in question.

You see, you libs go to great lengths to convict Trump because he was seen in a photo with someone who has committed a crime, even though Trump didn't even know the guy. He was just there. Didn't know the guy's name much less meet with him and arrange a meeting with Russians.

Now you have photographic proof of Al Franken's boorish and sexist behavior and you feel this proves nothing.

 

[Lewdog]

A Kevlar vest isn't just clothes. Do you not know what a Kevlar vest is? I mean, you've at least played a video game with them in it right?

This line of argument is too stupid even for the dumbest of snowflakes to accept.

Let me get this straight, you think a Kevlar vest that can is stab proof, and can stop some bullets, is the same as any other piece of clothing?

From the legal standpoint, there's no difference. Whether she can feel his touch isn't the criteria.

Can you show a legal precedent where someone was convicted or lost in a civil suit for sexual assault where they "groped" someone through a Kevlar vest?

No need....this simply proves that Al Franken probably committed the assault in question.

You see, you libs go to great lengths to convict Trump because he was seen in a photo with someone who has committed a crime, even though Trump didn't even know the guy. He was just there. Didn't know the guy's name much less meet with him and arrange a meeting with Russians.

Now you have photographic proof of Al Franken's boorish and sexist behavior and you feel this proves nothing.

I'm not a lib, but I have common sense, and that is all you need to be able to understand political rhetoric. In fact that is how you should view politics... because when you start trying to dig deeper into shit like this, is when you start to lose contact with reality.

 

[BlackSand]

Let's get this on the record, then.

If that were your son in the photo instead of Franken, you would have executed a citizen's arrest on the spot or would have had him arrested when you landed.

Is that correct?
.

If it was my son ... I would have called her father/borthers and asked him/them if he/they wanted to beat his ass and where to drop him off ...

Which is probably a good reason I am not a parent ... Because I wouldn't tolerate that crap at all and let them settle it.
If he could apologize to their satisfaction ... Good on him ... If not, I would pick him uo when they were done, lesson learned.

.