Posted on 12/14/2017 4:42:40 AM PST by simpson96
Ain't that the truth.
Not “nuts”, it’s because *ANY* excuse by ANY male for mistreating a woman is invalid. Period. No context, not what she was wearing, nothing, not what he or she had to drink, nothing. A guy that sexually interacts with a woman against her explicit and unambiguous consent deserves a round to the cerebellum, no matter what.
If I had a daughter, of course, I’d explain that being ‘dead right’ is still being dead and getting raped because you gave a sleazebag the chance to do so is like arguing right-of-way with a semi when you are on a bicycle, but that doesn’t change the fact that I’m not the only one who says both that she can be a fool but that he should be used for organ donations to actual homo sapiens; I don’t care if he’s a pastor, a muzzie, a member of Antifa, a priest, or just a drunken bum.
You don’t support suicide but you support destruction by the state, to include capitol punishment?
:rollseyes:
If he was being defamed with fake news then it’s a tragedy. But if he really did mess up by kissing and groping a young woman then he went out with some dignity.
You say this like you know my views on capital punishment. I don’t support capitol punishment either except in perhaps very extreme circumstances.
You forget that respect goes BOTH WAYS,for men and women. It is a two-way street. It is a call to be decent to each other.
There is such a broad definition of sexual abuse these days I would have to knew specifics. He may have been totally innocent but knowing the consequences of even spurious allegations decided it was too much to deal with. Or he could be a total scuzball, I just don’t have enough information yet.
My condolences to his grieving family.
As for this man's mental state, isn't it obvious he was more than a little messed up and consequently a poor choice to be holding public office? (Or perhaps he fits right in and everybody knows it.)
While the Dems and other lefties are doing a purge of their middle-aged lechers and creeps (no doubt hoping that Donald Trump will be forced out once they can produce enough bimbos to make their fabrications believed by the public), we should step back a little and take a broader view--not of specific charges of a politician's improper conduct around women, young men and/or teenage girls, but of what I think we all would like to see in a politician.
That's a basic respect for others. Young and old, male and female, black and white and every color in between. Sane or not, we are all human, all God's children, all worthy of respect by those who claim to be working "for the people."
The tragedy that unfolded on a bridge yesterday may not have happened had the Rev. Johnson not been elected to public office.
IMHO, he had no business being in Kentucky's legislature, whether he called himself a Republican or a Democrat, and even if he was a member of the pro-life caucus and a devoted husband, father and grandfather.
He was a minister, and as part of that job he bore the weight of any number of failed marriages, natural and accidental deaths, financial problems and every malady members of his congregation brought to him. He could not easily separate his occupation from his political life. His conflicts of interest were not financial but emotional. What may have been a proper answer for members of his church would not necessarily be the best model for a state law, even if he thought it should.
* * *
I'm making a list, sort of like a character in a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta.
The list will no doubt grow, but as a start I would suggest there are three occupations which ought to give voters serious tremors and trepidation if they were to look beyond a favored candidate's campaign literature:
However (and there's always a however), an inordinate number of power-seekers, egomaniacs, narcissists and outright perverts have infiltrated these occupations over the years. It's a toss of the dice whether your ideal candidate by demographics is going to make things better or worse for the folks what elected him.
As the sun rises in the east, some individuals will, by any means available, ascend through the ranks to satisfy their lust to control others, often in ways they do not wish to be controlled.
Why would any intelligent American want to put this type of person in a position of power?
Why?
The modern Salem witch hunt is targeted at President Trump.
Liberal elites don't give a damn if women are hurt - they've been abusing and raping women for decades. Bill Clinton was ‘into’ rape and the ‘elites’ wanted knee-pads so they'd be ready if he unzipped... sadly Clinton wasn't turned on by ready and willing sluts. Clinton wanted the innocent and young - - like Weinstein and hundreds of other white liberal ‘elites’...
Prayers for this man's family... Here's a poster of a small portion of democrat ‘elites’ who have abused, raped, or damaged young women and didn't feel a second of shame.
The modern Salem witch hunt is targeted at President Trump.
Liberal elites don't give a damn if women are hurt - they've been abusing and raping women for decades. Bill Clinton was ‘into’ rape and the ‘elites’ wanted knee-pads so they'd be ready if he unzipped. Sadly Clinton wasn't turned on by ready and willing sluts. Clinton wanted the innocent and young - - like Weinstein and hundreds of other white liberal ‘elites’...
Prayers for this man's family... Here's a poster of a small portion of democrat ‘elites’ who have abused, raped, or damaged young women and didn't feel a second of shame.
You did not need to Google. That’s the default option, given that any article would mention it if he were Republican.
Good lesson in MSM-speak... When they don’t mention party in a scandal, it’s a democrat. When they don’t mention race in a crime, it’s a black person. When they don’t mention the perp at all in a terrorist attack, it’s a muslim.
I neither forget that or disagree with it.
I am merely saying that the PENALTY for men, at least, should be severe and have nothing to do with the dress or actions of the woman. It’s not an “either/or”. Regardless of if a woman is “decent” to me, or any other thing, I am under an absolute obligation with regards to *MY* behavior.
Two way street or one way street, if someone walks out in front of you and you are able to stop but don’t you are completely at fault for murder, even if THEY are a drunken or texting fool. Not an “either/or”.
And hopefully, that will be the *LAST* thing he feels :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
