NorthHawk wrote:Is there anyone out there in public life who's not a scumbag?
I'm sure there are some, but it's getting harder and harder to find them these days.
NorthHawk wrote:Is there anyone out there in public life who's not a scumbag? I'm sure there are some, but it's getting harder and harder to find them these days.
Hawktawk wrote:Cuomo is a scum bag. Numerous allegations now coming out from young beautiful women in their mid 20s of unwanted touching , kissing , sexually probing questions .it’s creepy I’m sure it’s the tip of the iceberg . Many questioned Cuomos lack of urgency in national politics and now we see why . I believe those who sexually harass others are scum bags no matter what their position in life.
NorthHawk wrote:He’s in a position of power and asked at least one young woman working for him if she liked sex with older men among other things.
To me that’s a scumbag.
RiverDog wrote:Bill Clinton, while holding the most powerful office in the world, received oral sex in the Oval Office from a naïve 21 year old intern, used his cigar on her as a French tickler, put it between his lips, then exclaimed "Tastes good!" If Cuomo's dirty talk with other women qualifies him as a scumbag, where does that place Clinton?
RiverDog wrote:Bill Clinton, while holding the most powerful office in the world, received oral sex in the Oval Office from a naïve 21 year old intern, used his cigar on her as a French tickler, put it between his lips, then exclaimed "Tastes good!" If Cuomo's dirty talk with other women qualifies him as a scumbag, where does that place Clinton?
Aseahawkfan wrote:That's the main indiscretion he was known for. I do wonder why people are not consistent in believing the accusations against Clinton with the barest of evidence given this it the era of believe every accusation without much evidence.
RiverDog wrote:It's not about believing or not believing him. Cuomo has admitted to quite a bit of stuff that at the very least is very inappropriate in a manager/subordinate relationship. They're just characterizing it differently. Cuomo is calling it "misinterpreted as unwanted flirtation" while his accusers are calling it "sexual harassment".
I have mixed emotions about it. The accusations are very lame and the type of behavior that Cuomo has engaged in is very typical of interactions in everyday life. Any relatively attractive waitress has to deal with those types of things on a routine basis. There are no accusations of a proposition and nothing he said or did was against the law. The kicker is that Cuomo was engaging in that behavior while he was in a position of authority, and it's very understandable for a woman to feel uncomfortable when the boss is behaving in that manner. The waitress can refuse to serve or sick a bouncer on customer that's making those kinds of comments. Not so with a government staffer.
Aseahawkfan wrote:It most assuredly is about believing the victim. I have seen many here and in the public mediums posting, "I believe the victim." Kavanaugh was accused of much, much lesser indiscretions done as a teenager at a drunken party on the barest of evidence from 30 years ago, but people were visiting upon Kavanaugh utter faith with all of his accusers, two of them. One a claim he assaulted her by grabbing her for about 30 seconds groping on her while a teen at a drunken party and the other basically teabagging her at a drunken party which both voluntarily attended in college. Do you know how many guys could claim sexual assault from other guys at drunken parties for that type of behavior? Hell, if we did an inventory of the behavior of High School and college age kids visiting upon them punishment for their behavior, not sure how many would still be standing at the end of it.
Aseahawkfan wrote:I'll reiterate again that I saw a guy's eyebrows shaved off, his faced colored with markers, by drunken dudes at a party because he passed out drunk. I've seen all kinds of inappropriate behavior invited and uninvited with women at drunken parties. I've seen drunken people start crap with each other. Once alcohol is involved, bad stuff happens at parties. Yet Kavanaugh was guilty forever based on 30 year old memories.
Aseahawkfan wrote:So now here's Cuomo and Clinton having excuses made for their behavior. Back when Bill was in trouble Hilary herself was questioning the veracity of the victim's claims back when Bill was the one being accused. The Democrats sacrificed Al Franken, who did less than Cuomo, to toss blood to their followers. Suffice it to say I'd love to see some consistency from the clowns that were shouting, "I believe the victim" with the barest of evidence. Cuomo deserves at least the Kavanaugh treatment by the press and Democrat supporters. He should be pushed to resign like Franken at least. It's only fair.
Hawktawk wrote:scumbags all. I believe Clinton's accuser. I believe trumps 25 accusers too. I believe Cuomo is a disgrace and pretty damn arrogant too carrying on like this in the me too era. Men like this are scum.
c_hawkbob wrote:Regarding Cuomo (in contrast to Clinton and Trump), he's single. And asking a woman if she's open to a relationship or if he can kiss her is what men are supposed to do now isn't it? But he is still at the very least a overbearing womanizer who uses his position of power to try to pressure women to acquiesce.
A bit disgusting and distasteful but not on the same level of Clinton who I view as the same but while married and certainly not as Trump who is also be an admitted serial molester.
c_hawkbob wrote:Regarding Cuomo (in contrast to Clinton and Trump), he's single. And asking a woman if she's open to a relationship or if he can kiss her is what men are supposed to do now isn't it? But he is still at the very least a overbearing womanizer who uses his position of power to try to pressure women to acquiesce.
c_hawkbob wrote:Regarding Cuomo (in contrast to Clinton and Trump), he's single. And asking a woman if she's open to a relationship or if he can kiss her is what men are supposed to do now isn't it? But he is still at the very least a overbearing womanizer who uses his position of power to try to pressure women to acquiesce.
A bit disgusting and distasteful but not on the same level of Clinton who I view as the same but while married and certainly not as Trump who is also be an admitted serial molester.
RiverDog wrote:I agree with your first paragraph, but the same level of Clinton with the only difference being that Clinton was married? I think you have either a short or a selective memory regarding Slick Willy's accusations:
Bill Clinton, the 42nd president of the United States (1993–2001), has been publicly accused of sexual assault and/or sexual misconduct by four women: Juanita Broaddrick accused Clinton of raping her in 1978; Leslie Millwee[1] accused Clinton of sexually assaulting her in 1980; Paula Jones accused Clinton of exposing himself to her in 1991 as well as sexually harassing her; and Kathleen Willey accused Clinton of groping her without her consent in 1993.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clin ... llegations
And that doesn't even speak to his use of cigars. Cuomo's accusations amount to passing notes in the classroom compared to Slick Willy's.
c_hawkbob wrote:I'm restricting my comments to things known or admitted to, not allegations. Allegations are too slippery a slope for what I had to say. And "use of cigars" is pure semantics you don't seem to be able to mention Clinton's name without including, consensual sex in the WH while married is the important operative and all though yes that may be more than is proven with Cuomo I still say the fact that he is single and the Clinton married is the prime differentiating factor.
c_hawkbob wrote:"Or admitted to" Riv. I know you read this stuff, why do you intentionally leave out important qualifiers like that? And I don't care that the rest of you had been talking allegations this whole time, I sad that I was restricting my comment to things known or admitted to and that all that needs to be said about it.
YOU are the one that's always saying someone is innocent until proven guilty aren't you? Yet you seem to have no problem dragging out allegations when it suits your argument. I chose not to in that statement because I am not sure allegations belong in this comparison. Why is that a problem?
Aseahawkfan wrote:And you are both ok with doing this in the workplace with co-workers? Maybe I was raised differently, but geez, this is wrong on so many levels. It's something I could not imagine doing. I'm very careful with women. I was always taught speaking to women in such a fashion in the workplace is ethically wrong and illegal. If a female complains about your behavior, you can be fired immediately, do not pass go. Weird that this is considered acceptable behavior in the workplace to you guys. I think you might be a generation behind me.
As far as being single and aren't we supposed to kiss girls or pursue them, not in the workplace. Though I imagine if you worked in a strip club then that's a different environment. In the corporate environment that is just not allowed or tolerated. It's asking to get fired. That's why I'm surprised at all these allegations given I was raised with very strict parameters about treating women and people in the workplace, especially so if you are a manager.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Elected officials apparently can't get fired for behavior that would get a regular working person fired with possible sexual harassment charges against them and the company if they did not fire you. It's a huge legal liability nowadays and every company has a hotline for reporting this type of behavior anonymously that I've worked for. I imagine more and more men are being made aware this is not tolerable behavior any longer. As that older generation raised to think this behavior is ok dies off, it will change dramatically. It's definitely already at the point where Cuomo/Trump/Clinton/Weinstein-type behavior is like a signing a career death sentence. Even elected officials will have to be far more cognizant of their behavior in the workplace with women.
Aseahawkfan wrote:I imagine the police are happy to go after Cuomo and probably any Democrat after the Democrats sold them out so terribly. Democratic politicians as a group basically said, "Hey, we're the government. We're going to make a bunch of laws that lead to you guys ending up in violent interactions with people, expect you to enforce them, then sell you out when something bad happens as a bunch of racists and criminals. Have fun being a cop!"
Aseahawkfan wrote:I imagine the police are happy to go after Cuomo and probably any Democrat after the Democrats sold them out so terribly. Democratic politicians as a group basically said, "Hey, we're the government. We're going to make a bunch of laws that lead to you guys ending up in violent interactions with people, expect you to enforce them, then sell you out when something bad happens as a bunch of racists and criminals. Have fun being a cop!"
RiverDog wrote:The police are not opening an investigation, at least not yet. The accuser hasn't filed a complaint. The state government merely advised the police that an allegation involving physical contact exists and gave them the contact info for the accuser's lawyer:
As a matter of state policy, when allegations of physical contact are made, the agency informs the complainant that they should contact their local police department,” Ms. Garvey said in a statement. “If they decline, the agency has an obligation to reach out themselves and inform the department of the allegation.”
Hawktawk wrote:I said it a week ago, its the tip of the iceberg. Any guy in a position like his that is as aggressive and invasive with young women in public as he was even after me too is surely much worse when the door is closed. He should resign. His career is derailed as it should be.
Hawktawk wrote:Cops aren't 99.9% good people . A majority are but not as many as i used to think.
RiverDog wrote:There are over 900,000 full time law enforcement officers in this country. Even if 99.9% of all cops are 'good people', that still leaves 900 bad cops. That illustrates just how demanding we are of that profession.
https://usafacts.org/articles/police-de ... explained/
RiverDog wrote:There are over 900,000 full time law enforcement officers in this country. Even if 99.9% of all cops are 'good people', that still leaves 900 bad cops. That illustrates just how demanding we are of that profession.
https://usafacts.org/articles/police-de ... explained/
Aseahawkfan wrote:Cops may not be all good people, but neither are politicians. Politicians make the laws, expect the police to enforce them, then throw them under the bus when it goes wrong, at least the Democrats. They have created especially problematic drug laws as well as traffic laws that allow the police to stop a person on a whim for almost anything. So they create this situation where the police are empowered to enforce thousands of little laws, then when this goes wrong the cops are the bad guys.
Why no one asked why a group of cops needed to arrest Eric Garner for selling loose cigarettes on the street? Who made that law?
You have 900,000 cops enforcing thousands of laws created for arbitrary reasons that allow them to stop any citizens on a whim with some loose reason as to why. I still recall getting stopped for crossing lanes too fast at night on a completely empty street. Why is that even a thing? No one was even there to be endangered, yet here was a police office stopping me for crossing to a run lane without establishing myself in the next lane over when no one was around.
If the politicians really wanted to reduce crime and problems between police and citizens, they would reduce the number of laws police get to enforce. Who can know all these laws? Certainly not your average citizen. Yet politicians often get a pass with no one asking, "Why the hell is this law in place to start with? Why are you creating so many laws empowering the police to go after citizens?"
Who suffers more from these tickets? Some wealthy European ancestry citizen making enough money to pay off parking tickets like it's nothing? Or some poor minority these politicians are claiming to want to protect that over-priced parking in cities creates a financial burden for when driving to work? Politicians spend a lot of time creating additional hidden costs for working people with all these laws and fines, yet shift the blame off on the police as they hide behind them.
RiverDog wrote:You bring up some good points.
I will say something about traffic tickets, though. If a person of few means takes their ticket to court and argues a financial hardship, there's a good chance that the judge will suspend or significantly reduce the fine.
But I hear what you're saying. My step son could never get his life straight, and a lot of it had to do with his driving record. He had his license suspended on his 18th birthday when he was driving while his two 'friends' were using a .22 to shoot empty, parked vehicles. They convicted him using a law designed for drive by shootings and he served some time. Even when his license was re-instated, he couldn't get insurance, so he'd get pulled over for not having tabs on his care and they'd suspended his license again and impound his car. With no means of transportation, he had a hard time finding work, so even if he found an old beater of a car, he couldn't afford the insurance. It was a vicious circle. I'm not making excuses for him, but I never realized how tough society makes it for a slightly dysfunctional person that isn't a bad guy, just a perpetual f-up until I saw it close up.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Some of this is what I'm talking about. It puts a person in a vicious cycle. Even the welfare system is similar where they tell you if you have a job, you get nothing in welfare. Yet the job may not cover all that welfare is covering. But they don't have a sensible system in place meant to help them get back to work rather than punish them for not finding a job that covers everything when they may not have the skills to get such a job. A lot of these systems aren't created in a sensible fashion. Then the various government workers are sent out there to manage these systems, while the politicians hide behind them letting them take the heat for the problem like they can make adjustments on the fly without breaking the law. It's stupid.
I don't know how you get these politicians to act in a fashion that is good for humanity in more than words. It never seems to work.
RiverDog wrote:I agree about the problem, but I don't know what the solution is. The best we can hope for is to give these folks that find themselves in that vicious cycle a change to break out of it. In the case of my step son, he certainly had tons of chances as we threw countless thousands of dollars down a chit hole trying to help him out. We bought him a car once and he spend a couple grand putting in a stereo system, new wheels, etc, but wouldn't get insurance or license tabs for it. That's not the politicians fault.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Ok. I'm sorry, but he sounds like he has excrement for brains. You can't do much when someone is just careless and stupid.
Hawktawk wrote:I’ve got a son who has had a similar driving record , crashed cars , no insurance . He’s perpetually upside down . All you can hope is they get enough footprints on their third member they stop stepping on it I have employed many people on golf course crews driving without a license etc . The job pays terrible so they choose between a car and gas or beg rides walk and pay off your fines. It’s a vicious cycle
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests