Reading Comprehension

professor · 2017-10-14T15:15:57+00:00

Some folks here seem to express interest in discussion beyond golf and sports... So, here's some grist for your mill. I'm curious as to who and how far the...

professor

Spuzz Complaining does nothing at all.

Exactly! Correct!

candukid

LBlack14
puttnfool don't waste your time with him, and please, don't judge all Canadians based on him either.

I bet you were both bullies growing up...

puttnfool

candukid ... and you'd lose.

Spuzz

candukid I bet you were both bullies growing up...

Puttnfool was likely bullied for his pansyness.

LBlack14

candukid I was bullied growing up, but I'm not gonna let you bully me, here or in real life.

professor

LBlack14 please, don't judge all Canadians based on him either.

Thanks, that's a great request. Let's see if it gets honored? So, I simply take that as your reply to me that you're not always in favor of broad-brush generalizations.

LBlack14

professor you're right professor, I'm wrong for doing that. No ifs, ands or buts about it.

ode

Spuzz lol

Sneakylong

puttnfool

Assault is unwanted touching. Resisting has nothing to do with it. So in your weird little world if a women is raped and does not resist then you consider that consensual?

Whether it be sexual harassment or sexual assault it's all about power over a woman. Just because a woman doesn't report / complain about sexual harassment, sexual assault or rape doesn't mean she consented to it. Get real.

puttnfool

Sneakylong Assault is unwanted touching.

Exactly. If someone doesn't want you to do something, then they stop you. If someone touches me and I don't want them to, I remove their hand (or whichever appendage is touching me) from my body. If I like it, then I don't remove it. Now, if the "victim" is unconscious or otherwise unable to consent, we have a completely different case. I don't think that's the situation here.

lambo

I would think all of you would know that the basis (Christopher Steele dossier) for the Russian investigation has been reported by the Washington Post to be nothing but total fabrication solicited and paid for by the DNC and Clinton Foundation. Millions of dollars were paid for this fabrication. Some Democrats are seeking to say that some of the material was confirmed by the FBI, but don't disclosed that a key FBI information source was Christopher Steele. The FBI had been conned into hiring Christopher Steele. They removed him from their payroll when it became public knowledge Christopher Steel was on their payroll.

Quote from CNN (CNN) "The long probe into Russia's meddling in the 2016 presidential election took another turn this week when it was revealed that Hillary Clinton's campaign helped fund the creation of the controversial Trump dossier."

Sneakylong

lambo

You failed to mention that it was a Republican (working for another candidate) that originally hired Steele to do opposition research. But when Trump won the nomination they dropped it. The law firm affiliated with the DNC and Clinton campaign then picked it up and paid Steele to keep investigating.

What the Republican campaign and subsequently DNC did isn't illegal. Big difference. Also, it's funny that Trumpers aren't interested if what's in the dossier is true or not (and much of it has been proven true). No, they just want to know who paid for it.

Sneakylong

We'll be divided as long as the right wingers live in their delusional parallel universe of Fox News, Breitbart, and right wing radio. Fox News is dredging up this old debunked Russian uranium story as a diversion tactic. They bring up another shiny object and the Republican congress start an investigation in order to divert attention from the real story. And then Fox reports on the phony investigation.

Listening to their bullshit you'd think Hillary, Obama and Holder colluded with Russia to get Trump elected. 🙄

mikeintopeka

Sneakylong Fox News is dredging up this old debunked Russian uranium story as a diversion tactic.

It was the New York Times that published an update on it early last week and Fox ran with it, as did some foreign news outlets. #1 - they originally published a lengthy report on it in 2015 and blew the cobwebs off of it because of #2 - A former FBI informant that was embedded in the uranium dealings finally came out of the dark side and found an attorney to represent him. Under the previous administration's DOJ, they had him sign a Non - Disclosure Agreement (NDA) that he couldn't divulge any details about what he had learned. A federal judge last week ruled the NDA was invalid if he testified before Congress.

I did find it humorous that of the 'left leaning media' there was an incredible amount of space given to Flake's speech deriding Trump but not one column inch given to the intelligence insider trying to testify.

mikeintopeka

Sneakylong Also, it's funny that Trumpers aren't interested if what's in the dossier is true or not (and much of it has been proven true).

What has been proven true in that dossier so far? That document was widely circulated around the press corp and the halls of Congress (McCain). Wasn't it only Buzzfeed that published it in its entirety?

mikeintopeka

Sneakylong You failed to mention that it was a Republican (working for another candidate) that originally hired Steele to do opposition research. But when Trump won the nomination they dropped it. The law firm affiliated with the DNC and Clinton campaign then picked it up and paid Steele to keep investigating.

It looks like the WaPo has now changed their story: "But as the Washington Post itself reports, the dossier did not exist until after the Democrats hired Fusion GPS".

puttnfool

Sneakylong So, tell us. How does Larry define sexual assault? BTW, who is Larry again?

Sneakylong

Par4QC

Look a little harder. First Google and I got this.

"In tort law, assault and battery are intentional torts that involve “unwanted touching.” Originally, assault and battery were two separate claims: assault involved making someone afraid they were about to suffer an unwanted touch, while battery involved actually touching them. Some U.S. states still separate the two torts, while others have lumped them together into one cause of action."

Unwanted kissing and groping would be considered sexual assault.

LBlack14

Sneakylong just curious, is that the new and updated version of the definition?

puttnfool

Sneakylong I can live with that. Unfortunately (for your case), if they let him, then it's not exactly unwanted.

candukid

puttnfool I can live with that. Unfortunately (for your case), if they let him, then it's not exactly unwanted

Are you serious? Wow...I feel sorry for you...
So, a 17 yearold kid leans over the seat and kisses your 14 year old daughter on the face while riding on the bus. She doesn't want it to happen but she let him do it because there was no way out, and he was bigger than her and older. I guess in your world that is not assault because "she let him" and according to your words "then it's not exactly unwanted"

lambo

The team, of the hopeful Republican running for the nomination, who first hired Steele came up with nothing. Interesting when the Clinton campaign team channeled millions to Christopher Steele he suddenly had all this information for his dossier.

So after all this time and the spending of 10's of millions of taxpayer dollars to investigate these allegations we discover it was the Clinton campaign using a foreign spy to bring us fabricated dirt.

« Previous Page Next Page »