Dems Accuse GOP Lawmaker of Verbal Assault and Harassment

1. 90

   GA Andersonposted 13 months ago

   Here's the deal . . .
   
   I just caught the middle of a CNN Breaking News, (it was breaking news for me), from the Capital steps: Their screen tag was Dems Accuse GOP Lawmaker of Verbal Assault and Harassment
   
   The only detail I caught was that it had something to do with a Republican lawmaker telling a Democrat lawmaker to "Kiss my ass."
   
   And that's the story folks; a "kiss my ass" is now verbal assault worthy of national coverage from the Capital steps. This is the level of enlightenment' we have reached.
   
   Now I wonder if mentally saying it is as assaulting as really saying it is?
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 83

      Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Prior to his sentiment --- he physically poked her with his finger in her back,  "kiss my ass" followed. Not cool.

      replyreport
   2. 80

      Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Well, GA, the physical assault goes beyond just verbal, it is arrogant on the part of the GOP rep. So, it is more than just incidental as you have suggested in your narrative.
      
      Why did you leave that critical piece of information out?

      replyreport
      1. 90

         GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

         Well damn Cred. Just what the hell did you read from my OP?
         
         I will give you the bullet points and you can see my reply to Islandmom for more.
         
         •  I charged idiocy in making a claim of verbal assault for saying "kiss my ass."
         
         •  I emphasized that action as complete idiocy by noting it was coming from a legislative leader, to national news coverage, standing on the Capitol steps, (in a staged setting of course).
         
         • I didn't say anything about the `rest of the story' so there was no "incidental" anything.
         
         I didn't know there was a `regular' assault charge for the poking, but that wasn't my point either.
         
         Geez. Maybe I am the one that should be "Sad (but not a surprise anymore)." Here are two regulars extrapolating all the most juicy partisan or apologists' angles from a statement that was both direct and brief. You didn't need to read between the lines. and you certainly didn't find any of the stuff claimed.
         
         And for my usual disclaimer: Or maybe I just misunderstood your reply. ;-)
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

            You mis- understood me, that is alright , I guess.
            
            I focus often on the proper decorum of ladies and gentlemen within this august body. You speak to me about the offended turning the other cheek in the larger interests of the institution. . One sides' members seems to have the preponderant problem of threats and crass behavior relative to the other side.
            
            I regard the "poking" as a form of intimidation, if it were just the words themselves, I may have seen the event in a more innocuous light. The way this came across, would this brute dare to assualt another man in the same way?
            
            The intimidation is what being reported, that goes beyond mere words.

            replyreport
            1. 90

               GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

               And still, you follow with more political stuff. I don't think I misunderstood you, I think I got it just right.
               
               Relative to your responses I agree that the fellow involved was rude and crude. He is probably a misogynist too. Hell, he might even be as weak of character as his actions say. Yet I didn't speak to any of that or any other detail about the incident. It seems that because I did not speak to or condemn those details I must be a Republican apologist.
               
               You are stuck in a partisan groove Cred.  This has nothing to do with "turning the other cheek"  and you are the one that framed this in political `sides'
               
               Then you wonder "would this brute dare to assualt another man in the same way?" There is your misogyny angle, but the OP didn't speak to the man/woman thing.
               
               Maybe I should have taken a tip from My Esoteric and capitalized the point to clearly emphasize the topic:
               
               IT IS NUTS AND A "sad" INDICATOR OF OUR LEVEL OF HUMAN ENLIGHTENMENT WHEN AN ADULT LEGISLATOR PUBLICIZES CHARGES OF VERBAL ABUSE AND HARASSMENT ON A NATIONAL STAGE BECAUSE ANOTHER ADULT TOLD THEM TO "KISS MY ASS."
               
               Geez.
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  So, GA, you are the one that initiated this thread and as they say "you asked for it".
                  
                  Yes, I don't care for Republicans and conservatives in this current mode, generally. I admit that.
                  
                  But my observation of this rude behavior and my conclusion is not a partisan one. As I said before, threatening and intimidating women is not the mark of a gentleman, regardless of which side initiates it. These congresspeople are all aware of the agreed upon requirement to wear masks.
                  
                  So, I did not "frame" anything. So, the press got a hold of the story. It is not about the words more than the actions and behavior.

                  replyreport
                  1. 90

                     GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                     Oh lordy, lordy. Et tu, Brute?
                     
                     I can see repeating myself won't help, you have probably seen all my other responses. You know I am not defending the man or his behavior, and I certainly didn't address whether he was a gentleman. I didn't dispute the known facts.
                     
                     And you are wrong, my OP was all about the words.
                     
                     "And that's the story folks; a "kiss my ass" is now verbal assault worthy of national coverage from the Capital steps. This is the level of enlightenment' we have reached."
                     
                     Beyond the Copy&Paste of the CNN headline, and the party affiliation of those involved, there was nothing political in the OP. It was all about the state of our `enlightenment' that has created the environment where this issue would have been a piece of national news and top leadership `outrage event.'
                     
                     Sharlee nailed it: a 30-second encounter between two self-important people. And from that, it blew up into a national issue involving all the really good `bad white man' red meat: misogyny, racism, conservative white privilege, harassment, intimidation, and bullying.
                     
                     It was Rep. Beatty's tweets and interview statements that list all of those red meat items I mentioned.
                     
                     Maybe this would have been more productive if I had shoved a political twist into the works.
                     
                     psst. the Press didn't "get a hold of the story," the Black Caucus leadership handed it to them from the Capitol steps. I don't think it is me that is making a big deal out of a molehill.
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 87

                        Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                        'I don't think it is me that is making a big deal out of a molehill.'
                        
                        And yet, you're the only one who thought it deserved a whole thread.  The rest of us just saw a molehill and would have just moved on.

                        replyreport
                     2. 80

                        Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                        It is just that the "words" were not the whole story.
                        
                        Ok, I am following you as an infraction like this could have addressed without the fanfare. If Rep Beatty unduly embellished this affair, then I can see your point.The old gentleman may have simply apologized and I believed that he did.
                        
                        I would not want to presume the white privilege, racism or even misogyny was a motive in his behavior. The man was just rude and intimidating over the single issue. There is always an implicit threat from a man that touches a woman in a way that is not invited. It could be seen as an attack. It is a component of the atmosphere of our society. This congressman is old enough and should have known better.
                        
                        It is unfortunate that it had to become a national affair. I would take the morsels of blue meat from the table with the exception of harassment, intimidation and bullying.

                        replyreport
                        1. 90

                           GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                           yeah but . . . okay, that sounds like a reasonable response. I knew there was hope.
                           
                           GA

                           replyreport
               2. 82

                  Ken Burgessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  A sign that America is continuing to transform into a "safe space".
                  
                  These are our "elected" leaders, setting the example, writing the laws, overseeing our government, agencies, and agendas.
                  
                  The physical and verbal assault should not be tolerated by such, it is good that it is brought to light, and lets hope that Republican or Democrat, such base actions and words are one-day cause for removal from the body politic in the near future.

                  replyreport
                  1. 90

                     GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                     Is this the `new' Ken, The Satirist?
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
   3. 77

      tsmogposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      I am going to be brutely honest and it may speak to my character, I dun'no. Twenty years ago when I worked in the trenches getting dirty if someone poked me in the back and said "kiss my ass" I would retorted "F*** O** A** H*** while flipping them the bird. So, yes I would see it as a verbal assault. Later, when I worked in the office environment with the majority being ladies I changed to the better with social etiquette. Today, I would simply smile and walk away. So, the bottom line is I would have expected more from congressman Hal Rogers character.
      
      Yet, a simple search on Google and one discovers such fax pas is historical with our representatives and naturally they are held accountable by the media using emotion to feed the public sentiment. Isn't that what if it bleeds it leads mean? I think everything is being amplified by the media these days using the force of judgmentalism while many times met by the force of cancel culture. Why, you can be fired from a job today for posting something like what he said on your Facebook feed.

      replyreport
      1. 90

         GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

         "Why, you can be fired from a job today for posting something like what he said on your Facebook feed."
         
         And that was my point, that is our stage of enlightenment. We no longer have to worry about `sticks and stones' breaking our bones, now we claim it is words that will harm us. Also, my point was that it was a legislator, (not the media), that made this a national issue.
         
         As in your "trenches" example, I think your FOAH is a good response. If your antagonist had responded with "FOAH yourself"are you further abused? Would that make it to the level of involving higher authorities for you?
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 77

            tsmogposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            I think we are in agreement. And, yes I should have been inclusive it is the Dem's making a stink of this. I think it comes down to social settings and decorum in some respects. Like I shared how I would have responded in the trenches vs.in the office environment are different. (BTW . . . It was more like thirty years ago, not twenty) Following the Joe Rogan dilemma I see the same thing kinda'. Until his use of the 'N' word entered the picture. Yet, that is kinda' the same point today people dig deep into another person's past with the intent to cancel them. I am surprised I was not banned for what I said in my post as some may find it certainly offensive.

            replyreport
            1. 90

               GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

               Yeah, you might be a fellow dinosaur.
               
               GA ;-)

               replyreport
   4. 83

      Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Taking another shot at your puzzling post just never can leave well enough alone.  --- should have picked up on the eight-word CNN in your first sentence. moved on to the hook -- the hyperbolic tag in bold., and the single statement you quoted from the article -"Kiss my ass".  CNN's tag certainly pulled me in to read the article and look for further context. What the context revealed was a hap-hazard 30-second confrontation between two individuals (Dem GOP)  that rubbed each other the wrong way. And CNN saw the opportunity to pit one party against the other, as the article's tag clearly indicates. They did not need to work hard to imply the incident showed the GOP individual was a rogue individual --- an anti-masker, misogyny, and whatever else one might imagine on their own. 
      
      However, One could also say it was an incident that lasted 30 seconds, that was spurred on by two individuals'  that human nature
      got the best of.  But, that is not at all where we are as a society are a today.

      replyreport
      1. 90

         GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

         Well hell Sharlee. I just told Islandmom the same thing. But I used a lot more words that probably weren't necessary. I think your response nailed it just as well with a lot fewer words.
         
         Except, I do understand your CNN promotion point, but I think they are simply the vehicle. I think Beatty and the Black caucus are the main offenders here.
         
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 83

            Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Oh yes! However, I was not so sure you wanted me to head down that road. You know just how wordy I can get when on a roll...  I mean CNN really knows how to stir a big pot of ugliness.

            replyreport
2. 89

   IslandBitesposted 13 months ago

   And you didnt bother to get the whole story, eh? I get it, it had to fit.
   
   
   Sad (but not a surprise anymore).

   replyreport
   1. 90

      GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Okay, Islandmom, `here's my deal . . .' just for you.
      
      First, after past declarations, (and examples), of my bias, you shouldn't keep getting your hopes up. It's too late for this dinosaur, and after this "kiss my ass" example I might be more neanderthal than a dinosaur.
      
      What did you take from my OP? I don't know if your sadness is because of my apparent dismissal, (I didn't look for the whole story), of other relevant details, such as; it was a misogynistic issue, it was a partisan issue, it was a race issue, or whatever else came to your mind. So I am left to guess.
      
      Maybe I can make it worse by explaining the exact idiocy I was targeting; telling someone to kiss your ass is verbal assault. That's it.
      
      Of course, there are a lot of possible angles to be sniffed out. Such as; was that a slam against Democrats, (with my bias it couldn't be against the Republicans), was it a slam against women, women of color, or maybe just a slam at a leader of the Black Caucus standing on the Capital steps claiming verbal assault.
      
      Maybe there is a lot more to that tirade deemed to be verbal assault but all I heard emphasized was the "kiss my ass." Does it change my point if there is more?
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

         The incident was just rude, GA, regardless of who was on the delivering and receiving end.

         replyreport
         1. 90

            GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Of course it was rude to say it out loud. I didn't say otherwise.
            
            Maybe I am the idiot, but I don't see telling an adult "kiss my ass" as verbal assault, (or harassment?). And certainly not as a national headline issue.
            
            GA

            replyreport
      2. 89

         IslandBitesposted 13 months agoin reply to this

         Thank you for taking the time. It's never too late, so I'll keep my hope up.
         
         Just for you...
         
         To your point
         
         You're taking the situation out of context, because it wasnt just the "kiss my ass". And if it was just the phrase, out of the blue, would that be harassment and verbal assault? I dont know, it depends how you define, but also the tone, the attitude.
         
         But there is obviously a political angle. That is obvious, and you know it. And that's how politics happens in both sides
         
         So I think you're the one making something big out of it just to fit your narrative.
         
         Now to the sad part, and using your quote.
         
         "IT IS NUTS AND A "sad" INDICATOR" that your outrage is because a figure of speech (you often do this) and not because of the main issues. Not because a grown man said that to a coworker, worse, both members of Congress. Or because that old man, decided to break the rules (of not using a mask). Or because a coworker ask him if he could use a mask, and he gets aggressive. Or because he decided to touch/poke her because of that. Or because he decided to tell her that rude comment when she asked him not to touch her. (But you wouldnt know all that, according to the OP, because you decided it was more important to make a thread about "LEVEL OF HUMAN ENLIGHTENMENT" than to check why would an old member of Congress would tell that to a coworker. And that's so sad too.)

         replyreport
         1. 90

            GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            That was a lot, for you. Thanks. Now I have to ask Google to help me out with that "context" thought, (yep, gonna need the details). I will `circle back' to you on this one.
            
            GA

            replyreport
         2. 90

            GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Here is my "circle back."
            
            Oh gawddd Islandmom it's worse than I thought. I was right, I didn't need the other details and I stand by my original OP even more strongly.
            
            I checked out Google's first page of results for "congress "kiss my ass""
            
            The general scenario, (in Rep. Beatty's words) is that legislators were boarding the Capitol subway on their way to a House vote. That seems a simple mental picture we can see.
            
            None of the first page sources mentioned whether there was a rush or a crowd, but from her statement that all she did was ask him to wear his mask, it seems logical to envision a mild mob of lawmakers, in close quarters, in the process of boarding. Maybe an image or two might help.
            
            
            
            
            
            Now I get a mental video of that mild mob moving forward to board and a self-important-feeling black woman slowing the process to chide another super-self-important-feeling white man—who just wants to get on the damn train, for not wearing his mask. His response was to give her a finger poke to move along. When asked "not to touch me" he responded with "kiss my ass."
            
            And that, according to Google, is the entirety of the incident. I didn't find any source with information about anything that occurred before or after the "kiss my ass," or that Rep. Rogers had such a history in general or specific to Rep. Beatty.
            
            I think I now know the context and details well enough to plant my flag with the OP. One micro-time incident involving a scenario I suggest we are all familiar with, consisting of one poke and one kiss my ass, is not verbal assault and harassment to anyone but a . . .
            
            To take the OP's point up a level, here is the chain of accusations made by Rep. Beatty, all drawn from that  minute or three incident:
            
            Her tweet said that he poked her in the back and said "kiss my ass." Which she further expanded to disrespect from GOP members flaunting health and safety mandates. Now there's some politics for you.
            
            Then, encouraged by the response, she gave an interview expanding on the depravity of the behavior by bringing in "disparities and people are treated differently," and . . . the race card: "what would have happened if that would have been reversed? If a Black man would have touched a white woman and used the profanity with her"
            
            Stay with me now, all of this is coming from a rude man simply being an idiot in a multi-minute incident.
            
            Then three dozen Black Caucus members mount the Capitol steps to nationally demand a public apology. For a `get on the train prode and a Kiss my ass response.
            
            I am not defending Rogers or his actions, I am ridiculing Beatty's claims.
            
            To your closing "sad" paragraph, I say No, No, and damn no. You have it all wrong.
            
            I was never discussing the "main issue." I very specifically addressed one detail of the issue. Further information from the "other details" doesn't seem to affect the point of the OP. My "outrage," (if I had any), would be to responses such as yours; criticism for not addressing a complexity of details instead of just one. Ya gotta start with the basics. And responses such as yours don't do that. You skip the basics, replace them with assumptions, and go off the rails.
            
            After considering the context and learning available details, I stand with the OP. This is an incident involving an impatient self-important and rude old man and a self-important politically ambitious black woman trying to make political hay from a golden opportunity of our times, (political victimhood and the Race Card). An opportunity only provided by our current "level of enlightenment."
            
            Politically there is `nothing new there.' I can see a Republican doing the same stuff. I wasn't criticizing the politics but I was casting shade on "enlightened mentalities.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 89

               IslandBitesposted 13 months agoin reply to this

               You're right, it IS worse than I thought.
               
               Your imaginary scenario means you are ok with breaking the rules, right? Well, that's different. A change of heart?
               
               Some points:
               
               she further expanded to disrespect from GOP members flaunting health and safety mandates. Now there's some politics for you.
               
               Well, she is a politician. But she's also right. He was an example of that. There are others. "Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Andrew Clyde — have been fined a combined nearly $150,000 for defying the requirement that everyone wear a mask in the House chamber during the COVID-19 pandemic."
               
               The Black Caucus issue, again, politics as usual. That's why it wasnt that big of an issue except for your narrative. He apologized, she accepted the apology.
               
               I was never discussing the "main issue." I very specifically addressed one detail of the issue.
               
               Oh, I know. You once told me that what you dont say is as important as what you do say. You chose the angle that fits and made a big deal out of it. But you're wrong. Mine was not "criticism for not addressing a complexity of details instead of just one." It was that you didnt bother to check why, you just heard what you wanted to hear and ran with it. And also how you dismiss the rest of the story now that you know it. "Yeah, yeah, he was rude and crude, but hey! They said verbal assault!!"
               
               
               But to each their own.
               
               
               
               Still, te tengo cariño. Even when you make me go
               
               
               (Yes, I know how much you love emojis.   )

               replyreport
               1. 90

                  GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  Boy, what a struggle. Let's find what have to be misunderstandings.
                  
                  Do you think my scenario is an improbable imagination? The pictures portray the real subway setting and that portrayal seems to fit Rep. Beatty's description of the events, ie. "boarding the train heading for House floor votes."
                  
                  I thought it was a fair and impartial painted picture. *shrug
                  
                  I don't know how you came to the conclusion that my explanation "means you are {I am] ok with breaking the rules," I repeatedly condemned the behavior as rude and crude, and I didn't offer any defense for those actions. Claiming the reaction to those actions is idiocy does not imply I support those same actions. It seems that, to you, (and others), my criticism of this one aspect means I am defending and supporting all aspects of the incident. I don't, I didn't and you know that. Start from the OP and count how many times I have specifically noted what I was discussing. It wasn't what you have extrapolated it to be; acceptance of the behavior.
                  
                  Yep, it is all about politics, and "te tengo cariño" too.
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     IslandBitesposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                     I don't know how you came to the conclusion that my explanation "means you are {I am] ok with breaking the rules," I repeatedly condemned the behavior as rude and crude, and I didn't offer any defense for those actions.
                     I meant the not wearing a mask part, not his subsequent actions.
                     
                     But now that you mentioned this: Claiming the reaction to those actions is idiocy does not imply I support those same actions. It seems that, to you, (and others), my criticism of this one aspect means I am defending and supporting all aspects of the incident.
                     
                     I honestly dont think you are defending or even that you agree with his behavior. But when you are so dismissive of her claim, you kinda make it "not that bad". Also, because there obviously was a partisan opportunity, does not negate the fact that a grown ass man, member of Congress, touched/poked a coworker and when asked to stop touching her he then was "rude and crude". She asked for an apology, he knew was wrong and apologized. It was news for a day, just like any stupid thing that Trump, or Kanye, Maher or whatever Housewife of (choose the state) says.
                     
                     You singled out the phrase (and reactions by politicians) to fit your narrative and you're making it a bigger issue than it was.
                     
                     (And awww, I hope that was sincere. )

                     replyreport
                     1. 90

                        GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                        It was sincere, even if I did have to look up the translation. ;-)
                        
                        At least we did clear up some misunderstandings. I got sidetracked from the mask thing in my dismissiveness, and that my OP wasn't pointed at any particular party. Idiocy isn't confined to party affiliation.
                        
                        I think we can put this one to bed now.
                        
                        GA

                        replyreport
               2. 80

                  Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  It is always ok to break rules as long as it is the Republicans that do it.

                  replyreport
            2. 80

               Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

               "what would have happened if that would have been reversed? If a Black man would have touched a white woman and used the profanity with her"
               --------
               At a minimum he probably would have been arrested and possibly shot.
               ---------
               
               I don't want to make a federal case here. But, the older gentlemen should be aware that he is on candid camera, as part of his job, and apply a little discernment regarding his behavior.
               
               That victimhood and race card stuff is so "conservative" of you. But, I would say that the BlAck Congressional Caucus may be overplaying this, I can admit.

               replyreport
               1. 90

                  GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  So `conservative of me,' well bless your heart for that charity. And you can admit the Black Caucus "may be overplaying this," that's damn magnanimous of you.
                  
                  About that "victimhood" thing . . .  I think claiming verbal assault, harassment, bullying, intimidation, and misogynistic racism' (from this 30-second encounter), surely fits the label of victimhood. Do you not believe Rep. Beatty made these claims?
                  
                  Do you not believe that making a black man/white woman statement in the context of this incident is playing the race card? (the Politco article has her quote)
                  
                  If noting these facts is so conservative of me, what is your denial of these facts to you?
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
         3. 82

            Ken Burgessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            I have to agree, if we have people in CONGRESS that can't control their anger, their actions, or keep their commentary to witty retort rather than outright slander... WHAT HOPE DOES OUR COUNTRY HAVE with people like this running it?
            
            This doesn't have to do with Party... it has to do with having a higher bar, expecting more esteemed behavior.  If the people making the laws and running the country can't act better than the more violent, less educated, unfortunates amongst us, where does that leave us?

            replyreport
            1. 90

               GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

               . . . grroannn. (you should have left that last thought in the bag, it tilted the preceding ones. ;-)
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 82

                  Ken Burgessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  The last could have been worded/phrased better, but the intent is accurate enough.
                  
                  If the people making the laws and upholding the example (Leaders, Representatives) are acting in such unacceptable fashion, similar to what you would expect out of folks in a strip-club in the most dangerous part of some inner city... how are they going to bring in a brighter future for our Country or our Society?

                  replyreport
                  1. 90

                     GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                     Nope, I ain't jumping in,  you are on a roll.
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
3. 87

   Valeantposted 13 months ago

   Catch more details.
   
   “He then poked my back, demanding I get on the train. When I asked him not to touch me, he responded, ‘kiss my a--,’” Beatty wrote.
   
   When a man tells a woman he can 'kiss her ass' when she asks not to be touched, I would consider that harassment, for sure.

   replyreport
   1. 90

      GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Of course you do, but I heard it differently. I didn't hear that he told her he could kiss her ass. That would be weird, but I must admit that if he followed her around and repeatedly said it, then it might be harassment.
      
      You folks hang in there. Soon enough we might have a `daddy' we can ask to make her/him stop looking at me, or stop pointing at me. Or even better, let's give `daddy' the power to withhold her/his allowance or withhold our ice cream cones because one called the other ugly.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 87

         Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

         Of course you heard it differently, you didn't go to the main source but relied on media reporting. 
         
         One of these cases of the right feeling the need to try and defend the indefensible like the child separation policy.
         
         You're in some serious denial that a man has the right to touch a female without her permission apparently and feel the need to come on here and defend that, vehemently.  Personally, I would take a hard look in the mirror on this one if I were you and not worry about hanging in there about your 'daddy' issues.

         replyreport
         1. 93

            wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            What would be the "main source"?  A politician that knows nothing but how to lie?

            replyreport
            1. 87

               Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

               Deflection, and one full of ignorant and exaggerated claims.

               replyreport
         2. 90

            GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Okay, okay, this is bizarro world, right? I slipped in a sarcastic jab; with your quote: "he said he could kiss her ass."
            
            Since you point so strongly to good sources and knowledge of details, I assumed you knew Rep Beatty said Rogers told her she could kiss his ass and your phrasing was just a wording mix-up. I thought my intention was obvious—just a friendly jab for missing a misstatement.
            
            But look at your response. Criticism for not going to the main source. Well, I did, and you were still wrong, you misspoke.
            
            And then you really derailed. Taking a jab at your laziness earns me a special association with, in your mind, " the right feeling the need to try and defend the indefensible like the child separation policy."
            
            But you were on a roll. Now I am in "serious denial that a man has the right to touch a female without her permission apparently and feel the need to come on here and defend that, vehemently. " You must have imagined that because you won't find support for it in any of my responses. And I have "daddy" issues too. That's is baloney Valeant.
            
            I do take a hard look in the mirror once in a while, and I see a face smiling as it imagines telling someone they are full of shit when they are. You went so far overboard on this one that you might be that someone. Today anyways.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 87

               Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

               I'm sorry, but I do not joke around or use sarcasm when a woman asks a man not to touch her.  I don't find a man violating a woman's personal space something deserving of such disdainful speech.  Nor do I deny that as harassment, as this thread seems to attempt to do.

               replyreport
               1. 90

                  GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  And the man didn't touch her again after she asked. And the woman was not accosted, threatened, intimidated, or harmed. Yet, I still agree the man's behavior was bad, (crass, crude, and rude for you wordsmiths). But that is all it was. It wasn't verbal assault or harassment—as I see it, (obviously you see it differently).
                  
                  Maybe you should joke around once in a while. It might help you recognize the guardrails..
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 87

                     Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                     Telling a woman you won't agree to unwanted touching in the workplace is not harassment?  Yeah, ok.  Not a joke.

                     replyreport
                     1. 90

                        GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                        Who, of the characters in this incident, did that?
                        
                        GA

                        replyreport
                        1. 87

                           Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                           Woman - Don't touch me.
                           Man - Kiss my ass.
                           
                           Did you even read the quote?  Jesus.

                           replyreport
                           1. 90

                              GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                              Jesus `ain't got nothin' to do with this.
                              
                              I think you are talking about the "Kiss my ass" quote. So, yes I did read the quote. After your mix-up of "he said he could kiss her ass" maybe I am not the one with quote misunderstandings.
                              
                              What message are you attaching to it; something like "Kiss my ass I'll touch you any damn time I want" or "Kiss my ass, just get on the train" or Kiss my ass, I ain't got time for this" or Kiss my ass, another dam Democrat sniper" or, or what?
                              
                              From the details of the setting of this incident my first thought would be one of the more realistic ones; Kiss my ass, just get on the train" or "Kiss my ass, I ain't got time for this."
                              
                              I would guess that your addition would be in the vein of the first one; "Kiss my ass, I will touch you anytime I want."  And I think you would be wrong.
                              
                              GA

                              replyreport
                              1. 87

                                 Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                                 Considering the 'kiss my ass' response was directly after the request from her to him to not touch her, I think you're really straining to change the meaning. 
                                 
                                 https://twitter.com/RepBeatty/status/14 … y-ass.html

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 93

                                    wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                                    You forgot the part where she demanded that he wear a (useless in his opinion) mask.  Think that might have played a part in the 'kiss my ass' response?

                                    replyreport
                                 2. 90

                                    GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                                    "He then poked my back, demanding I get on the train."
                                    
                                    We, (or maybe just me), must be having a strange miscommunication. Your responses, and your link, seem to support what I thought I was saying; the `kiss my ass' was just a `get on the damn train' one. Not an `I can touch you anytime' one.
                                    
                                    This seems so obvious to me that your worst-case interpretation makes me wonder if I am missing something. I don't think I am.
                                    
                                    GA

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 87

                                       Valeantposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                                       Even this response leaves out the part where the 'kiss my ass' rebuttal comes immediately after the 'don't touch me' assertion.  So, yes, I think you are having a strange miscommunication by omission.

                                       report
                              2. 83

                                 Sharlee01posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                                 I hate to say it but - could it have been?--- Kiss my ass mask police and just get on the train, and mind your own business.
                                 
                                 One only has to watch a session or to of Congress in action on CSpan to see the back and forth this bunch has, and I mean both sides. "Don't look at me when you talk"   "Get a mask on, or get find" --- I love watching Congress in session on CSpan. It can be very entertaining. Reminds me of days my kids would fight at the dinner table.
                                 
                                 Let's face it they are human, they have crappy days, they get angry, they might say and do something they regret later...   Especially if CNN has made it "BIG BREAKING NEWS!
                                 
                                 Hate to say it --- I have told someone to kiss my ass due to a mask remark. Actually no, it was worse, I can not tell a lie.

                                 replyreport
4. 81

   hard sunposted 13 months ago

   This may be harassment of some sort, with the poke in the back, but no "verbal assault." It sets a creepy precedent to go charging people for name calling and such.

   replyreport
   1. 90

      GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      I don't see this, by the details of the press conference, one-time incident rising to the level of verbal assault or harassment.
      
      Maybe my yardstick is too long. This incident doesn't even reach a mark of measurement. tsmog's "trenches" example fits my perspective on this matter.
      
      GA

      replyreport
5. 81

   hard sunposted 13 months ago

   It seems so many of the people who follow politics the closest lost their damn minds. Signing off.

   replyreport