Pelosi now barking for John civil rights in the back seat Conyers to quit. His seat.

Conyers may be done...

Hes currently in the hospital.

Apparently a stress induced illness.

Franken's up to 5 now. Latest one an army vet.

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/30/56743683 ... es-forward


The comments here that he's a 'good guy' seem to have disappeared...

Also on the news this AM (Radio)

He apparently weenie waggles, got busted having sex in his office and sent other co workers sex toy's.

http://www.tmz.com/2017/11/29/matt-laue ... -sex-toys/

Locking them in his office. Now that's some creepy sex predator shit right there.

"According to the report ... Lauer's office also had a secret button under his desk, so he could lock the door without getting up."

6 for Freaky Franken now.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a- ... mg00000009

How many times have you said directly that people here (assuming on WaGuns?) have called Franken a 'good guy'? By my sketchy memory it has been 3 times now. I have asked you to show me where those comments are in case I actually said it (I don't think he is, so I don't think I said it but am asking.)
In some of the comments you use double quotes and this one single quote...
Was it actually said?
I would do the search myself, but this shitstorm of a thread has gone on for 18 pages and I have a computer that freezes regularly.. I actually tried to do the search twice, and had to restart both times.
Can you save me the frustration of rebooting my computer every five minutes and just link to where the term "good guy" was used?
I am not doubting it, I just want to make sure that you're not leveling that at me because I have used the "innocent until proven guilty" line several times.

This shitstorm of a thread has gone on for 18 pages and it looks like it might continue for another 100, unless we WaGunners get tired of it before the popular buzz does.

I used 'good guy' in single quotes for a reason, I was paraphrasing the various statements made here that were generally defensive or positive of Franken.

if I recall, one was that he had 'class' or something similar, and there were a few others that were either directly positive or indirectly positive by claiming he was 'less bad' than others.

Edit: look on page 8.

I think you used double quotes before.

So.. It WAS aimed at me.
A "fair and balanced" reading of my comments will find not a shred of support for Franken, at least so it seems to me. How can I see it that way? Because I do not support him in the slightest.

I could go back and quote and requote for 18 pages and probably 15-ish posts. You've made your point I guess... That you think I somehow said Franken was a 'good guy' ... (In single quotes this time.)

Alpine, let me state why I occasionally disagree with you here on WaGuns. You are laser quick to assume guilt of a Democrat and reluctant (or silent) to do so for a Republican.
You state things as FACTS that are immediately and easily seen to NOT be facts. (BTW, I actually wish you were right more often. Truly!)
You state other things as inevitable, and inevitably (haha) they do not come to pass. (I also wish that they WOULD come to pass!)

I am more critical of my own side of an argument than I am of my opponents side. When an ally of mine states something that needs support, I ask for that supporting evidence. I do not often ask my ideological opponents to support their argument.

I wonder... Does this make me look like I disagree more with my allies than with my opponents?!

Eh, I should have used double quotes the very first time, I used them above on this page. My grammatical mistake earlier I suppose.

To be fair, I didn't think it was directed at you, I couldn't even remember off the top of my head who had made positive comments or comments mitigating/defending Franken. I just remembered it pissed me off given his admission.

I am really not that partisan. I strongly disagree with your assessment of me. While it's true I usually despise democrat politicians more if they also happen to be anti-gun (which about 80-90% of them are), I believe in innocent until proven guilty. In the case of these sex scandals, most/near-all of the democrats have admitted guilt or have hard evidence against them vs nearly the opposite on the other side. That is an important distinction. If there was a photo/video of Trump actually assaulting someone (not talking about the abstract concept) then I'd call for his resignation and prosecution.

It may appear to a casual observe not looking closely that I could possibly be partisan, but that is a shallow analysis that does not take the admission of guilt/evidentiary standard into account.

I wasn't trying to nitpick... I just had a feeling it might have been aimed at me, so wanted to find out.


Sorry man. I don't mean to cause offense.


We are in lockstep solidarity on this, my ally.

So back to Franken... I quite despise him. I hope he gets replaced with someone who is pro-2A.
Your analysis of my analysis is that it is shallow... Right? Er rather my ability to analyze.
Remember, my "defense" of Franken occurred for the Tweeden accusation, which included as evidence only these three items:
1.Tweeden's accusation.
2. Photograph of Franken appearing to grope Tweeden
3. Franken's two apologies.

Your analysis is that he committed a crime, there is photographic evidence, and that he publicly admitted to a crime.
Correct me when I go off the rails, my ally.

My reading of the situation was that he sounds like a creep (the tongue kiss) and made juvenile humor for the camera.
I think a solid ass-kicking is warranted by the tongue kiss... But how do you call it a crime, when Tweeden agreed, even though reluctantly, to the "rehearsal"?
Crimes and punishments are very serious matters.
I fear that we spiral into a he-said-she-said on these things, and to me, there isn't nearly enough of the admission of guilt and evidentiary standards being met.

So you made your point at least 3 times about the 'good guy' comments... It appears solid that you were referring to my posts based on your 'see page 8' reply. Just be direct when you are referencing my comments, please?
In no way shape or form was I defending Franken... No manner. If anything I was defending our "innocent until proven guilty" premise, which seems to be in decline in these parts.

No offense taken.

I didn't call the tongue kiss a crime, and Tweeden did not necessarily agree to it. She argues that before it happened she said 'no.' (But that's a separate issue).
I pointed out that Slate's (who is biased left, was a huge supporter of Franken and would be MORE likely to defend him so attacking him is a big deal for them) legal writer deemed the photo evidence of a crime, and given Franken's admission that he knew the photo was wrong that does not bode well for him.

Will be be prosecuted? Maybe not. But some legal minds have argued it's plausible he could be based on the photo and his statements. Plus, with 6 accusations, half of which are admitted as true by him, a jury would be more likely to convict. Not sure about a judge.

Kind of strange that we can both be on the same side of an issue, see the same evidence, yet come to different conclusions? Not really that strange I guess.

No one likes to have their position characterized incorrectly... Not you, not me.
Not to beat a dead horse, but can you explain what I said that made you feel correct in using 'Al Franken is a good guy' (single quotes... ) in reference to Page 8 of this thread? Or anywhere in anything that I have ever said? In my life?
Specifically quote me please.
This is not to beat a dead horse... I want to correct myself where I make mistakes.

Can we get back to listing rich assholes who lead with their dicks now?