I agree. It's sad times that we have so many defending a man forcefully putting his hands on a woman in a professional setting.

 

So you are ok with letting women do whatever they want, get as close as they want, ignore secret service commands etc?

You know what makes my blood boil? The insinuation that a woman is only abused if she is beaten up enough to have something to show for it.

 

We are inundated with stories and statistics over women being reluctant to report domestic abuse or sexual assault and we wonder why. Well, the above (and a good chunk of this thread) is your answer.

 

You have no idea about me or what I have done or do for abused women. Your post is straight up garbage. Period.

 

I don't have to wonder why women are reluctant to report domestic violence or sexual assault, I know why.

 

This woman was not "abused" in any way. For you to consider this abuse shows you have no understanding of the term.

 

Should he have grabbed her, probably not. Was she "abused", not in the least.

You have no idea about me or what I have done or do for abused women. Your post is straight up garbage. Period.

 

I don't have to wonder why women are reluctant to report domestic violence or sexual assault, I know why.

 

This woman was not "abused" in any way. For you to consider this abuse shows you have no understanding of the term.

 

Should he have grabbed her, probably not. Was she "abused", not in the least.

 

I don't care about this case. What you implied with your post was that a woman isn't abused unless she's taken enough damage to prove it. That's garbage.

I don't care about this case. What you implied with your post was that a woman isn't abused unless she's taken enough damage to prove it. That's garbage.

 

Not to care you sure are doing alot of posting......:lol2:

I don't care about this case. What you implied with your post was that a woman isn't abused unless she's taken enough damage to prove it. That's garbage.

 

No it wasn't. That's how you interpreted it.

 

I said I know the difference in what is true abuse and what some want to water it down to. That's what is garbage.

Not to care you sure are doing alot of posting......:lol2:

 

I only meant that I wasn't commenting on this case when I was responding to his definition of abuse. And really, I don't care all that much and I've said a couple of times in here I'm not sure it was enough to warrant an assault/battery charge. But I was surprised to see so many here dismiss it as innocent or even noble when it seems pretty clearly both aggressively excessive and unwarranted. Otherwise, I wouldn't have bothered.

 

George Orwell was a socialist, by the way. :lol2:

 

No it wasn't. That's how you interpreted it.

 

I said I know the difference in what is true abuse and what some want to water it down to. That's what is garbage.

 

It seemed to me your definition of true abuse was something along the lines of obvious or graphic physical injuries. I'm happy to be wrong on this one and have misinterpreted your meaning, but I'm still not sure exactly where you're drawing the line between "real" abuse and "watered down" abuse if it's not that they need to look really beaten up for it to count.

I only meant that I wasn't commenting on this case when I was responding to his definition of abuse. And really, I don't care all that much and I've said a couple of times in here I'm not sure it was enough to warrant an assault/battery charge. But I was surprised to see so many here dismiss it as innocent or even noble when it seems pretty clearly both aggressively excessive and unwarranted. Otherwise, I wouldn't have bothered.

 

George Orwell was a socialist, by the way. :lol2:

 

 

 

It seemed to me your definition of true abuse was something along the lines of obvious or graphic physical injuries. I'm happy to be wrong on this one and have misinterpreted your meaning, but I'm still not sure exactly where you're drawing the line between "real" abuse and "watered down" abuse if it's not that they need to look really beaten up for it to count.

 

Just because he is a Socialist does not mean he could not say at least one thing smart in his life....I try to find good in everyone. Sometimes people make it really hard on me though.:thumb:

I only meant that I wasn't commenting on this case when I was responding to his definition of abuse. And really, I don't care all that much and I've said a couple of times in here I'm not sure it was enough to warrant an assault/battery charge. But I was surprised to see so many here dismiss it as innocent or even noble when it seems pretty clearly both aggressively excessive and unwarranted. Otherwise, I wouldn't have bothered.

 

George Orwell was a socialist, by the way. :lol2:

 

 

 

It seemed to me your definition of true abuse was something along the lines of obvious or graphic physical injuries. I'm happy to be wrong on this one and have misinterpreted your meaning, but I'm still not sure exactly where you're drawing the line between "real" abuse and "watered down" abuse if it's not that they need to look really beaten up for it to count.

 

True abuse and this woman being grabbed by the arm are entirely different things. Trying to correlate this incident and abuse is ridiculous.

Nice posts, Habib.

 

:eek: at the amount of BGPers that believe that this type of contact is accceptable and warranted by a staffer.

 

Additionally, it's a little ironic that the theme and tone of Trump's campaign is to push the boundaries and destroy the establishment, but when a vetted reporter pushes her boundaries violence is encouraged.

 

"Know your role !" New Trump slogan.

Nice posts, Habib.

 

:eek: at the amount of BGPers that believe that this type of contact is accceptable and warranted by a staffer.

 

Additionally, it's a little ironic that the theme and tone of Trump's campaign is to push the boundaries and destroy the establishment, but when a vetted reporter pushes her boundaries violence is encouraged.

 

"Know your role !" New Trump slogan.

 

Trump Campaign Manager Grabs Reporter - Video - NYTimes.com

So you are ok with letting women do whatever they want, get as close as they want, ignore secret service commands etc?

 

Not at all. If the SS felt she was doing something she shouldn't have been doing they'll put an end to it. Obviously that didn't happen so they must not have felt she was doing anything that warranted this type of action.

Nice posts, Habib.

 

:eek: at the amount of BGPers that believe that this type of contact is accceptable and warranted by a staffer.

 

Additionally, it's a little ironic that the theme and tone of Trump's campaign is to push the boundaries and destroy the establishment, but when a vetted reporter pushes her boundaries violence is encouraged.

 

"Know your role !" New Trump slogan.

 

I never said this was acceptable. Just stop already. The only thing people disagree with is if it was assault or not. Period.

 

Stop looking for something to be offended about everyday. If a HRC campaign manager had done the same you would be singing his praises.

I never said this was acceptable. Just stop already. The only thing people disagree with is if it was assault or not. Period.

 

Stop looking for something to be offended about everyday. If a HRC campaign manager had done the same you would be singing his praises.

 

I know Habib has already said so, and I agree with him, I don't know if it necessarily was assault either. I'd probably lean towards it not being so, but that doesn't excuse the behavior. It's not okay to grab a woman like that. Period.

 

As far as your second comment. I 100% agree, Hellcats would be bending over backwards to defend someone from Hillary's camp if they did this, but that's his shtick on here. You just ignore it. My tune wouldn't change regardless of who it was, because I can't stand any of them. :lol2:

This was floating around facebook today:

 

^^^

Problem there is video evidence of this, which nullifies any bogus claim she may have made before.