The Briefing Room
Briefing Room Polls (Guests Welcome!) => The Briefingroom Polls => Topic started by: corbe on November 16, 2017, 03:14:20 am
-
Of Couse first and foremost, it is entirely up to Alabamians right now and with that being said, what do you think concerning whether these accusations or true of not:
-
Free weed?
-
NO weed Roos, Frank takes our weekly allotment and sells it to his renters at a hell of a markup.
-
NO weed Roos, Frank takes our weekly allotment and sells it to his renters at a hell of a markup.
Look, I answered your silly poll and I expect something in return.
-
No one should be given the benefit of the doubt. If there is doubt,there is no case. Thus, it is not a benefit, except perhaps in a very narrow context.
Likewise, why should the women in this be given the 'benefit of the doubt'?
Thus, an accusation is useless without evidence.
-
Of Couse first and foremost, it is entirely up to Alabamians right now and with that being said, what do you think concerning whether these accusations or true of not:
New poll says the Democrat is now 9 points ahead. I saw a number of women from that area interviewed last night and they had voted for him before, now they will not in December. It is the women's vote that will take him down - the men will still vote for him.
-
You must have been among the 20% of Briefers that voted for me to stop polling last time, I'm deeply offended.
@RoosGirl
-
You must have been among the 20% of Briefers that voted for me to stop polling last time, I'm deeply offended.
@RoosGirl
..that was me... :whistle:
-
Oops.
-
New poll says the Democrat is now 9 points ahead. I saw a number of women from that area interviewed last night and they had voted for him before, now they will not in December. It is the women's vote that will take him down - the men will still vote for him.
@Victoria33
Why are you spamming every thread with Mitch McConnell's push poll? It's an outright lie designed to DRIVE opinions rather than measure them!
-
You must have been among the 20% of Briefers that voted for me to stop polling last time, I'm deeply offended.
@RoosGirl
Awesome. Another tally in the "Deeply Offended" column.
-
Enough with these damn polls. It's clear how everyone stands by the 408 continuous going Roy Moore threads over the last week.
-
Enough with these damn polls. It's clear how everyone stands by the 408 continuous going Roy Moore threads over the last week.
So you're annoyed with the lack of free pot too?
-
So you're annoyed with the lack of free pot too?
You're GD right. What the hell is my motivation to participate?
-
@Victoria33
Why are you spamming every thread with Mitch McConnell's push poll? It's an outright lie designed to DRIVE opinions rather than measure them!
@Bigun
I put that number on two threads, but I need to change them to Moore being 12 down, not 9.
You should know by now I consider your posts trash!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
You should know by now I consider your posts trash!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hey! We finally have something in common. I think you're trash too.
Maybe this could be another book idea for you? Get wide distribution on Publishers Clearing house!
(http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/images/column/berlin2013/pch.jpg)
-
@Bigun
I put that number on two threads, but I need to change them to Moore being 12 down, not 9.
You should know by now I consider your posts trash!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And I value yours exactly the same! :laugh:
-
Gentleman please dial it back from 11 to 10.
-
@CatherineofAragon
Vote in this most interesting poll; read thread.
-
@Bigun
I put that number on two threads, but I need to change them to Moore being 12 down, not 9.
You should know by now I consider your posts trash!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What poll are you reporting? Link please!
The worst, most recent poll I have found so far is Real Clear Politics showing Jones at 48.5% and Moore at 45.5% on November 15.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2017/senate/al/alabama_senate_special_election_moore_vs_jones-6271.html (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2017/senate/al/alabama_senate_special_election_moore_vs_jones-6271.html)
-
What poll are you reporting? Link please!
The worst, most recent poll I have found so far is Real Clear Politics showing Jones at 48.5% and Moore at 45.5% on November 15.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2017/senate/al/alabama_senate_special_election_moore_vs_jones-6271.html (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2017/senate/al/alabama_senate_special_election_moore_vs_jones-6271.html)
She's talking about Mitch McConnell's push poll which is ENTIRELY worthless!
-
An interesting take on Judge Moore from an Orthodox Christian blogger I occasionally read:
Hold your nose and vote for the theocratic wingnut molester. I think it unlikely he will spend much time in the Senate. He is too much of a political liability, and it seems that there are actually some lines that even Republicans won't let one of their own cross. I think if he is elected that the Senate will either refuse to seat him or they will expel him immediately after he takes the oath of office. Like Mitch McConnell I believe the women. But I also believe that the Washington Post had this story in the can for a while and deliberately held it back until after the loon won the GOP primary and the last date where he could be replaced on the ballot was safely past. If Moore gets elected and subsequently barred from the Senate (or expelled) then the governor gets to name his replacement pending a new election.
That being a personal comment by the blogger on an article he linked (for the comment in context and a link to the article he commented on follow
http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2017/11/rod-dreheres-thoughts-on-roy-moore.html (http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2017/11/rod-dreheres-thoughts-on-roy-moore.html)).
-
@CatherineofAragon
Vote in this most interesting poll; read thread.
@Victoria33
@corbe
I didn't vote because "off with his head" implies witch hunt, and I'm not after a scalp. But the previous two choices sure don't apply.
I vote for more polls, btw.
-
Hey! We finally have something in common. I think you're trash too.
@Frank Cannon
No she's not. She's as far as you can get from it.
-
@Frank Cannon
No she's not. She's as far as you can get from it.
I meant trash in the derogatory way.
-
....hmmm...I'm still looking for Dave from the last poll. :shrug:
-
@Victoria33
@corbe
I didn't vote because "off with his head" implies witch hunt, and I'm not after a scalp. But the previous two choices sure don't apply.
I vote for more polls, btw.
@CatherineofAragon in my haste to remove 'Moore Weed' from my Polls I inadvertently lost a significant number of my Briefer Friends by not giving them a Viable answer to the Poll Question and for that I apologize and if my Polling privileges are not suspended, again, I will strive to do better in the future.
@Freya @Victoria33
What I meant was maybe 'Off with his Head' is a poor substitution for The Patterns on Display bother Me
Asking the @Mods to Change.
-
@CatherineofAragon in my haste to remove 'Moore Weed' from my Polls I inadvertently lost a significant number of my Briefer Friends by not giving them a Viable answer to the Poll Question and for that I apologize and if my Polling privileges are not suspended, again, I will strive to do better in the future.
@Freya @Victoria33
No need to apologize. We already know you are painfully incompetent.
-
@CatherineofAragon in my haste to remove 'Moore Weed' from my Polls I inadvertently lost a significant number of my Briefer Friends by not giving them a Viable answer to the Poll Question and for that I apologize and if my Polling privileges are not suspended, again, I will strive to do better in the future.
@corbe
Frankly (heh), I find your omission of 'more beer' as an option to be disgusting and proves you to be a weed-centric bigot. There is virtually *no* question where 'more beer' is not a valid option. But that option has not yet been afforded even once (to my admittedly limited knowledge), *****rollingeyes*****
-
I thought it was a given @roamer_1 If your smoking weed you're probably drinking beer or Orange KoolAid.
-
No need to apologize. We already know you are painfully incompetent.
One of these days Frank I'll have my own Forum and you'll come stumbling in never to be heard from again
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NfvO2lolgGU/VHXZ17msOlI/AAAAAAAAUgY/W7pTcSf2_wA/s1600/Indian-torture-commanche-apache.jpg)
-
@corbe
Frankly (heh), I find your omission of 'more beer' as an option to be disgusting and proves you to be a weed-centric bigot. There is virtually *no* question where 'more beer' is not a valid option. But that option has not yet been afforded even once (to my admittedly limited knowledge), *****rollingeyes*****
(http://www.rustycans.com/Graphics/A-B/Billy.GIF)
-
anyone can change their previous vote with the redefined option being added
-
Thanks Mod4.
-
....hmmm...I'm still looking for Dave from the last poll. :shrug:
Dave's nor here, man.
-
No need to apologize. We already know you are painfully incompetent.
Painfully? can you show us on this doll where @corbe hurt you?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/72/Chucky_%28Child%27s_Play%29.jpg/220px-Chucky_%28Child%27s_Play%29.jpg)
-
I smoke marijuana for medicinal purposes only. I drink Beer to get Laid.
-
I smoke marijuana for medicinal purposes only. I drink Beer to get Laid.
(http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/ten_with_a_two.jpg)
-
That's her @RoosGirl and for the record I have nothing against big women the more soft skin the better, I just feel so cheated in the morning with those skinny broads.
-
That's her @RoosGirl and for the record I have nothing against big women the more soft skin the better, I just feel so cheated in the morning with those skinny broads.
According to @Frank Cannon they keep turning you down, so no doubt you've got nothing against big women.
-
I smoke marijuana for medicinal purposes only. I drink Beer to get Laid.
What are the poppers for?
-
As soon as I tell them I don't like Trump (it comes up pretty early in the initial conversation) their sick Chihuahua at home needs tending to and off they go. I blame the Deep State.
-
I'm just trying to outlive my 10 yo dogs here Frank, I don't do 'poppers' or Coke or any pills, anymore.
I figure if booze and weed can't make it interesting, it might be time to throw in the towel, anyway.
-
OK, I'm here. @corbe can break out the free weed now?
-
Staying on Topic this was apparently legitimized while Judge Moore was kicked off the Court.
(http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NTU5WDQxNQ==/z/BFQAAOSwsB9WAGmp/$_35.JPG)
-
Staying on Topic this was apparently legitimized while Judge Moore was kicked off the Court.
(http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NTU5WDQxNQ==/z/BFQAAOSwsB9WAGmp/$_35.JPG)
How do I get 28.2 of these to stick on a baggie?
-
This guy will explain it to you @Cyber Liberty
(http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2015/10/29/magazine/30-willie-nelson-cover.nocrop.w529.h756.jpg)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tJXjt5D4zY
-
@roamer_1
New Fox Poll out today - Moore down 8 - comment was women are dropping him.
Just like I said they would. Just like I said country women are just like other women because they are women. :seeya:
@CatherineofAragon
-
@roamer_1
New Fox Poll out today - Moore down 8 - comment was women are dropping him.
Just like I said they would. Just like I said country women are just like other women because they are women. :seeya:
@CatherineofAragon
@Victoria33
We'll see. If so, I am eternally offended. I thought women had more sense than that.
But, I don't think it's right.
And if it is, it won't matter at all to me.
The standard is proof.
-
@Victoria33
We'll see. If so, I am eternally offended. I thought women had more sense than that.
But, I don't think it's right.
And if it is, it won't matter at all to me.
The standard is proof.
Don't panic. Women can't vote in AL so this is no big deal.
-
Don't panic. Women can't vote in AL so this is no big deal.
LOL!
Did you see this?
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,291416.msg1517473.html#msg1517473
Among other things, there is a statement from the mall manager refuting the 'mall ban'.
-
@Victoria33
We'll see. If so, I am eternally offended. I thought women had more sense than that.
@roamer_1
Your mistake is "I thought women...". See, you aren't a woman as I said in another post to you so you can't know the universal experience women have with men which gives women the mindset they have. Women are "made" to look for protection for herself and her future children, just as men are "made" to want to have sex. She has to have protection because she is weaker than a man. Women know they are vulnerable and are putting themselves in the place of the women who were approached/stalked by Moore, and most will not vote for him now. That is why he is falling in the polls just as the Fox Poll shows and the Republican Poll showed a couple of days ago.
-
@corbe
Frankly (heh), I find your omission of 'more beer' as an option to be disgusting and proves you to be a weed-centric bigot. There is virtually *no* question where 'more beer' is not a valid option. But that option has not yet been afforded even once (to my admittedly limited knowledge), *****rollingeyes*****
I 2nd the motion...
-
@Victoria33
We'll see. If so, I am eternally offended. I thought women had more sense than that.
But, I don't think it's right.
And if it is, it won't matter at all to me.
The standard is proof.
@roamer_1
Sense, like that sad, moronic excuse for a woman in Alabama who said today that Moore is the closest thing we have to a Founding Father?
Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddtrick didn't need proof to be believed. We used our common sense, weighed what we knew, and came to the correct conclusion.
-
@roamer_1
Your mistake is "I thought women...". See, you aren't a woman as I said in another post to you so you can't know the universal experience women have with men which gives women the mindset they have. Women are "made" to look for protection for herself and her future children, just as men are "made" to want to have sex. She has to have protection because she is weaker than a man. Women know they are vulnerable and are putting themselves in the place of the women who were approached/stalked by Moore, and most will not vote for him now. That is why he is falling in the polls just as the Fox Poll shows and the Republican Poll showed a couple of days ago.
@Victoria33
Then don't be whining about why there aren't any good men nowadays. This is why.
-
@roamer_1
Sense, like that sad, moronic excuse for a woman in Alabama who said today that Moore is the closest thing we have to a Founding Father?
Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddtrick didn't need proof to be believed. We used our common sense, weighed what we knew, and came to the correct conclusion.
But there was proof, evidence in the form of contemporary accounts and physical evidence as well. Erasing that evidence was Hillary's task in quelling the "bimbo eruptions." A reminder: Billy got impeached not for diddling the teen-aged intern, but for lying in a deposition where Paula Jones was trying to get her justice. The Obstruction of Justice in that case was the effort to deny Jones the evidence.
-
@roamer_1
Sense, like that sad, moronic excuse for a woman in Alabama who said today that Moore is the closest thing we have to a Founding Father?
Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddtrick didn't need proof to be believed. We used our common sense, weighed what we knew, and came to the correct conclusion.
@CatherineofAragon
Actually no - I did believe Juanita Broderick (the only one that mattered) - But as I have said elsewhere, The blue dress is what did the trick.
And why you didn't immediately jettison Cruz is entirely beyond me - SAME circumstances, SAME vapid allegations without proof. SAME all the way around.
-
@CatherineofAragon
Actually no - I did believe Juanita Broderick (the only one that mattered) - But as I have said elsewhere, The blue dress is what did the trick.
And why you didn't immediately jettison Cruz is entirely beyond me - SAME circumstances, SAME vapid allegations without proof. SAME all the way around.
@roamer_1
Not at all the same. The characters of the two men (Trump and Cruz) were well known, as was Trump's history of dirty tricks. The whole thing came off as a clown show. Besides, you said you believed Juanita Broadderick without tangible proof, so...?
I truly can't comprehend not accepting a woman's claim of being sexually abused or molested unless there's tangible proof. What do you think there's going to be? A video? I mean, when that guy in my past kept pushing me into corners and demanding sex, I guess you wouldn't have believed me unless I'd managed to get his skin under my fingernails.
Those are legal standards only.
-
@roamer_1
Not at all the same. The characters of the two men (Trump and Cruz) were well known, as was Trump's history of dirty tricks. The whole thing came off as a clown show. Besides, you said you believed Juanita Broadderick without tangible proof, so...?
Roy Moores character is pretty well known prior to these allegations as fairly upright. It is also known that both the writer and the paper she works for that is alleging this is in the tank for Jones. By your logic Moore should be as innocent as Cruz.
-
But there was proof, evidence in the form of contemporary accounts and physical evidence as well. Erasing that evidence was Hillary's task in quelling the "bimbo eruptions." A reminder: Billy got impeached not for diddling the teen-aged intern, but for lying in a deposition where Paula Jones was trying to get her justice. The Obstruction of Justice in that case was the effort to deny Jones the evidence.
@Cyber Liberty
Yeah, I understand that he was impeached for perjury and not his sexcapades.
We have plenty of contemporary accounts in the Moore cases. Witnesses who heard the victims' claims years ago, character witnesses, etc. Right down to the cop who tossed him from the mall. So the question becomes, who's lying? Moore? Or every single one of those people? And for what? Some of them are Trump supporters.
Another thing...why are all of the victims stopping short of rape? None of them claim Moore raped them. If I were going to set out to deliberately bring a man down with fake sex charges, I wouldn't stop at fondling or undressing. That undressing would turn into rape to make it as convincing as possible, to take it all the way.
-
Roy Moores character is pretty well known prior to these allegations as fairly upright. It is also known that both the writer and the paper she works for that is alleging this is in the tank for Jones. By your logic Moore should be as innocent as Cruz.
@Frank Cannon
Is it?
(https://i.imgur.com/tNHFvdP.jpg)
-
@Frank Cannon
Is it?
And what are those allegations they claim? That he is a Jesus Freak?
-
@Cyber Liberty
Yeah, I understand that he was impeached for perjury and not his sexcapades.
We have plenty of contemporary accounts in the Moore cases. Witnesses who heard the victims' claims years ago, character witnesses, etc. Right down to the cop who tossed him from the mall. So the question becomes, who's lying? Moore? Or every single one of those people? And for what? Some of them are Trump supporters.
Another thing...why are all of the victims stopping short of rape? None of them claim Moore raped them. If I were going to set out to deliberately bring a man down with fake sex charges, I wouldn't stop at fondling or undressing. That undressing would turn into rape to make it as convincing as possible, to take it all the way.
Maybe because a false rape charge is a chargeable offense, or would more likely be.
The goal of peeling away a few percent points on election day has (so far) not required the accusers to put themselves in potential legal jeopardy.
Just IMO.
-
@Cyber Liberty
Yeah, I understand that he was impeached for perjury and not his sexcapades.
We have plenty of contemporary accounts in the Moore cases. Witnesses who heard the victims' claims years ago, character witnesses, etc. Right down to the cop who tossed him from the mall. So the question becomes, who's lying? Moore? Or every single one of those people? And for what? Some of them are Trump supporters.
Another thing...why are all of the victims stopping short of rape? None of them claim Moore raped them. If I were going to set out to deliberately bring a man down with fake sex charges, I wouldn't stop at fondling or undressing. That undressing would turn into rape to make it as convincing as possible, to take it all the way.
Beats me. My only point in bringing that up was to show I don't accept stories without evidence. I tend to think of people as innocent until evidence proves them otherwise. I guess it's a character flaw, or I'm just being dense.
It's like science to me...I accept nothing about the behavior of the electronics I characterize unless I can prove it with solid measurement data.
-
And what are those allegations they claim? That he is a Jesus Freak?
@Frank Cannon
If we ever develop a time machine you can ride back to 2002 and ask them.
-
@Frank Cannon
If we ever develop a time machine you can ride back to 2002 and ask them.
Well going to the state of Alabama is like going to 1997, so maybe I'll go there and wait a couple years.
-
Beats me. My only point in bringing that up was to show I don't accept stories without evidence. I tend to think of people as innocent until evidence proves them otherwise. I guess it's a character flaw, or I'm just being dense.
It's like science to me...I accept nothing about the behavior of the electronics I characterize unless I can prove it with solid measurement data.
@Cyber Liberty
But how often do you get actual physical evidence of sexual abuse? It's rarely possible, unless the abuser agrees to be videotaped.
In view of that, and in view of that fact that legal'scientific standards don't apply, then we have to take the information we have and sift through it and make a decision. Demanding proof is just a punt.
-
@Cyber Liberty
But how often do you get actual physical evidence of sexual abuse? It's rarely possible, unless the abuser agrees to be videotaped.
In view of that, and in view of that fact that legal'scientific standards don't apply, then we have to take the information we have and sift through it and make a decision. Demanding proof is just a punt.
Contemporary testimony has a lot of sway. 40-year old testimony, not so much.
-
Not at all the same.
@CatherineofAragon
EXACTLY the same.
The characters of the two men (Trump and Cruz) were well known, as was Trump's history of dirty tricks. The whole thing came off as a clown show.
The character of the men involved here are just as equally known. As are the dirty tricks of the MSM, DNC, RNC... take your pick.
Besides, you said you believed Juanita Broadderick without tangible proof, so...?
I believed what she said, but what she said was not actionable. The blue dress, finally, proved he was lying, and not just mistaken in recollection, or any other excuse. A flat-out lie.
I truly can't comprehend not accepting a woman's claim of being sexually abused or molested unless there's tangible proof. What do you think there's going to be? A video? I mean, when that guy in my past kept pushing me into corners and demanding sex, I guess you wouldn't have believed me unless I'd managed to get his skin under my fingernails.
Those are legal standards only.
That is why it is so important to stand from the beginning. That is why the bruises should be witnessed and why it's best if she leave a mark on him. And the story told while it is fresh, and things can be discovered.
Here, let me tell you a story.
I was punching cows one spring - Went over east of the hump with a buddy of mine, as the snow was off, and we were busting brush drifting the cows down toward the flats getting ready for branding...
We were there about 10 days or so when he had to cut and run for home (I don't remember the reason why).
A few days later another hand brought news to me that I had to get down and call him, which I did. Seems a gal accused him of raping her at a party, and he'd had to kick the crap out of three of her family since he was back, and they were gunning for him. He needed the truth told.
So I gathered signatures of everyone that knew he was working there for the last while, and beat feet for home. I got a sit-down with the grandfather of the family, showed him proofs which were enough for him to make the father of the gal come to the sit-down (which he'd declined, because of who my friend was).
The old man called off the dogs, and personally drove over the hump to confirm the thing. As it turns out, his daughter was too drunk to know who did her, and was relying upon what others said happened. Had my friend not been four counties away at the time, with folks to back him, he'd have been sorely abused for something he didn't do, and he would have been hung with the rapist label and run out of town, if he lived that long...
THAT is why it is so important. People go off half-cocked, and shit happens that ought not.
-
I tend to think of people as innocent until evidence proves them otherwise. I guess it's a character flaw, or I'm just being dense.
Yeah, me too.
-
Contemporary testimony has a lot of sway. 40-year old testimony memories that pop up 30 days before an election , not so much.
Fixed it for you.
-
@Cyber Liberty
But how often do you get actual physical evidence of sexual abuse? It's rarely possible, unless the abuser agrees to be videotaped.
In view of that, and in view of that fact that legal'scientific standards don't apply, then we have to take the information we have and sift through it and make a decision. Demanding proof is just a punt.
@CatherineofAragon
Someone so inclined is going to leave a trail, and that trail will have bastard children in it. Someone so inclined will mess up and run across a woman with a daddy and brothers, or uncles and cousins - there would be evidence of his getting a beat-down for it - And those men WOULD rise to say they did.
That is why it is so important to come forward at the time and not 40 years later, when there is nothing but hearsay and gossip. I am surprised that standard still ain't so elsewhere, especially in the South.
-
@CatherineofAragon OK, here's the deal. I refuse to be stampeded.
I won't have people who hate this candidate force me to stand in opposition, and I won't have supporters of this candidate drive me like a herd of cattle into supporting him no matter what is revealed about him.
OK?
-
@Frank Cannon
Is it?
(https://i.imgur.com/tNHFvdP.jpg)
Nicely edited.
Read the whole thing.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/web-producers/111417Roy%20Moore%20Finished%202.png)
Note the comment that Moore thought everyone was corrupt but him. Might that be the source of the eye rolling?
Take things out of contest to support the unsupportable and you indicate the allegations are less credible in the long run.
-
Well going to the state of Alabama is like going to 1997, so maybe I'll go there and wait a couple years.
@Frank Cannon
Point awarded!
-
Contemporary testimony has a lot of sway. 40-year old testimony, not so much.
@Cyber Liberty
I don’t agree. In this area, a child killer was recently put behind bars (should have been executed) for murders he committed over 50 years ago. There were no issues concerning the testimonies of witnesses.
What happened to those women is as clear in their minds as if it happened last week.
-
@CatherineofAragon
EXACTLY the same.
The character of the men involved here are just as equally known. As are the dirty tricks of the MSM, DNC, RNC... take your pick.
I believed what she said, but what she said was not actionable. The blue dress, finally, proved he was lying, and not just mistaken in recollection, or any other excuse. A flat-out lie.
That is why it is so important to stand from the beginning. That is why the bruises should be witnessed and why it's best if she leave a mark on him. And the story told while it is fresh, and things can be discovered.
Here, let me tell you a story.
I was punching cows one spring - Went over east of the hump with a buddy of mine, as the snow was off, and we were busting brush drifting the cows down toward the flats getting ready for branding...
We were there about 10 days or so when he had to cut and run for home (I don't remember the reason why).
A few days later another hand brought news to me that I had to get down and call him, which I did. Seems a gal accused him of raping her at a party, and he'd had to kick the crap out of three of her family since he was back, and they were gunning for him. He needed the truth told.
So I gathered signatures of everyone that knew he was working there for the last while, and beat feet for home. I got a sit-down with the grandfather of the family, showed him proofs which were enough for him to make the father of the gal come to the sit-down (which he'd declined, because of who my friend was).
The old man called off the dogs, and personally drove over the hump to confirm the thing. As it turns out, his daughter was too drunk to know who did her, and was relying upon what others said happened. Had my friend not been four counties away at the time, with folks to back him, he'd have been sorely abused for something he didn't do, and he would have been hung with the rapist label and run out of town, if he lived that long...
THAT is why it is so important. People go off half-cocked, and shit happens that ought not.
@roamer_1
Nope, not the same. I explained why.
Part of the problem is that you see them as identical because, based on your experience with one woman, all women are, to quote TOS, lying bitches when they say they’ve been abused. But it’s simply not true.
It’s easy, extremely easy, to say yeah, you have to have a record of bruises and the woman has to fight back. Do you realize that sometimes a female is too scared to do it? Or is being threatened? You can’t hold a 14 year old responsible for not fighting back and leaving marks.
It doesn’t always happen like that. From the start, I’ve said that I take this kind of thing case by case. I don’t start out with assumptions as to innocence or guilt. Yesterday I read about another accuser who just came out. She gave her account, then finished with the claim that Moore asked how old she was, and when she said she was past her teens, he looked very disappointed. That raised a red flag with me. It seemed too neat, too designed to wrap up a point.
The thing is, I think you guys, in reacting to those times when men have been falsely accused, tend to go on defense every time.
Regarding the media, yeah, I know how they are, but if we’re to the point that we refuse to listen or see anything at all because of them, then we’ve gone round the bend. Not everything is a media attack. Sometimes people just suck.
-
@CatherineofAragon
Actually no - I did believe Juanita Broderick (the only one that mattered) - But as I have said elsewhere, The blue dress is what did the trick.
And why you didn't immediately jettison Cruz is entirely beyond me - SAME circumstances, SAME vapid allegations without proof. SAME all the way around.
@roamer_1
@CatherineofAragon
Juanita Broaddrick…..
In 1997 Juanita Broaddrick filed a sworn affidavit with Paula Jones' lawyers stating there were unfounded rumors and stories circulating "that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies... These allegations are untrue". She said this under oath.
Broaddrick then said in an interview with Dateline NBC that aired on February 24, 1999, that she had indeed been raped by Clinton in 1978, admitting to lying in a sworn affidavit.
However, three weeks after the alleged assault, Broaddrick participated in a small Clinton fundraiser at the home of a local dentist. She claimed she only did so because she was “still in shock”.
At the time of the alleged 1978 rape, she was having an affair with David Broaddrick, who also was married to another person.
So do these inconstancies and changes in Broaddrick’s story, what some might say is a bad reflection of her personal and moral character such as having an affair with a married man while herself being married, and the fact that after the alleged rape, she attended a Clinton fundraiser make her claim untrue? No.
Yes, she has friends who say she told them about the rape contemporaneously, but then again Broaddrick never filed a police report, claiming she was afraid because at the time Clinton was the AG of Arkansas, nor did she go to a hospital where any physical evidence of a rape would have been collected, even if she didn’t want to file charges or name her rapist.
Is this really any different between Clinton’s accusers and many of Moore accusers? Let’s review.
Victims coming forward many years later? – Check
Multiple accusers? – Check
Being afraid to come forward because the man was in a position of power? - Check
A consistent pattern of behavior of the accused? – as yet unproven, but still, Check
The women having told others about what happened contemporaneously? – Check
That perhaps at least one victim had further contact with the alleged abuser after the alleged assault? - Check
Some of the women perhaps not being themselves of a perfect moral character? – Check
Questions about the “timing” of the allegations? - Check
So all I ask is that we try to be consistent.
If we are going to believe without question the word of women accusing those who we don’t like or who are on the opposite side of the political aisle, then we at least should try to be consistent in applying the same standards of when and why we believe women with very similar claims when it involves people we do like and or are our political allies.
-
@Cyber Liberty
I don’t agree. In this area, a child killer was recently put behind bars (should have been executed) for murders he committed over 50 years ago. There were no issues concerning the testimonies of witnesses.
What happened to those women is as clear in their minds as if it happened last week.
Murder? I think we're still talking past each other a bit on this @CatherineofAragon, so I think I'll drop it and go back to waiting to see what happens... :whistle:
-
@roamer_1
@CatherineofAragon
Juanita Broaddrick…..
In 1997 Juanita Broaddrick filed a sworn affidavit with Paula Jones' lawyers stating there were unfounded rumors and stories circulating "that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies... These allegations are untrue". She said this under oath.
Broaddrick then said in an interview with Dateline NBC that aired on February 24, 1999, that she had indeed been raped by Clinton in 1978, admitting to lying in a sworn affidavit.
However, three weeks after the alleged assault, Broaddrick participated in a small Clinton fundraiser at the home of a local dentist. She claimed she only did so because she was “still in shock”.
At the time of the alleged 1978 rape, she was having an affair with David Broaddrick, who also was married to another person.
So do these inconstancies and changes in Broaddrick’s story, what some might say is a bad reflection of her personal and moral character such as having an affair with a married man while herself being married, and the fact that after the alleged rape, she attended a Clinton fundraiser make her claim untrue? No.
Yes, she has friends who say she told them about the rape contemporaneously, but then again Broaddrick never filed a police report, claiming she was afraid because at the time Clinton was the AG of Arkansas, nor did she go to a hospital where any physical evidence of a rape would have been collected, even if she didn’t want to file charges or name her rapist.
Is this really any different between Clinton’s accusers and many of Moore accusers? Let’s review.
Victims coming forward many years later? – Check
Multiple accusers? – Check
Being afraid to come forward because the man was in a position of power? - Check
A consistent pattern of behavior of the accused? – as yet unproven, but still, Check
The women having told others about what happened contemporaneously? – Check
That perhaps at least one victim had further contact with the alleged abuser after the alleged assault? - Check
Some of the women perhaps not being themselves of a perfect moral character? – Check
Questions about the “timing” of the allegations? - Check
So all I ask is that we try to be consistent.
If we are going to believe without question the word of women accusing those who we don’t like or who are on the opposite side of the political aisle, then we at least should try to be consistent in applying the same standards of when and why we believe women with very similar claims when it involves people we do like and or are our political allies.
A thoughtful post, a fair point raised. This is how Republicans think, at least the ones I know. :patriot:
-
Murder? I think we're still talking past each other a bit on this @CatherineofAragon, so I think I'll drop it and go back to waiting to see what happens... :whistle:
*SIGH*
For the love of PETE, @Cyber Liberty, I halfway expected someone to squawk “so you’re equating Roy Moore with a murderer” but I didn’t think it would be you. Really? You couldn’t see that I was responding to your post about 40 year evidence by countering with an example that’s 50 years old?
Talking past each other? Speak for yourself, I’ve been perfectly clear.
smdh
-
*SIGH*
For the love of PETE, @Cyber Liberty, I halfway expected someone to squawk “so you’re equating Roy Moore with a murderer” but I didn’t think it would be you. Really? You couldn’t see that I was responding to your post about 40 year evidence by countering with an example that’s 50 years old?
Talking past each other? Speak for yourself, I’ve been perfectly clear.
smdh
I was speaking for myself. I'm obviously not coming across well. Now stop shaking your head at me...lol
Of course you are perfectly clear, @CatherineofAragon
-
@roamer_1
@CatherineofAragon
Juanita Broaddrick…..
In 1997 Juanita Broaddrick filed a sworn affidavit with Paula Jones' lawyers stating there were unfounded rumors and stories circulating "that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies... These allegations are untrue". She said this under oath.
Broaddrick then said in an interview with Dateline NBC that aired on February 24, 1999, that she had indeed been raped by Clinton in 1978, admitting to lying in a sworn affidavit.
However, three weeks after the alleged assault, Broaddrick participated in a small Clinton fundraiser at the home of a local dentist. She claimed she only did so because she was “still in shock”.
At the time of the alleged 1978 rape, she was having an affair with David Broaddrick, who also was married to another person.
So do these inconstancies and changes in Broaddrick’s story, what some might say is a bad reflection of her personal and moral character such as having an affair with a married man while herself being married, and the fact that after the alleged rape, she attended a Clinton fundraiser make her claim untrue? No.
Yes, she has friends who say she told them about the rape contemporaneously, but then again Broaddrick never filed a police report, claiming she was afraid because at the time Clinton was the AG of Arkansas, nor did she go to a hospital where any physical evidence of a rape would have been collected, even if she didn’t want to file charges or name her rapist.
Is this really any different between Clinton’s accusers and many of Moore accusers? Let’s review.
Victims coming forward many years later? – Check
Multiple accusers? – Check
Being afraid to come forward because the man was in a position of power? - Check
A consistent pattern of behavior of the accused? – as yet unproven, but still, Check
The women having told others about what happened contemporaneously? – Check
That perhaps at least one victim had further contact with the alleged abuser after the alleged assault? - Check
Some of the women perhaps not being themselves of a perfect moral character? – Check
Questions about the “timing” of the allegations? - Check
So all I ask is that we try to be consistent.
If we are going to believe without question the word of women accusing those who we don’t like or who are on the opposite side of the political aisle, then we at least should try to be consistent in applying the same standards of when and why we believe women with very similar claims when it involves people we do like and or are our political allies.
Sworn affidavit? No.
Risking perjury charges to recant said affidavit? No.
Consistent pattern of behaviour of the accused? Not so much.
(Two claimants who say he made sexual advances. More who say he did not, and conducted himself as a gentleman. At this point conducting himself as a gentleman is in the majority, and conforms to behaviour observed by the vast majority of those who came into contact with him. If I had to pick 'flyers' on the chart, it would be for him to conduct himself in a sexually aggressive manner.)
-
Nicely edited.
Read the whole thing.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/web-producers/111417Roy%20Moore%20Finished%202.png)
Note the comment that Moore thought everyone was corrupt but him. Might that be the source of the eye rolling?
Take things out of contest to support the unsupportable and you indicate the allegations are less credible in the long run.
@Smokin Joe
Maybe he did think everyone was corrupt but him. And maybe the source of the eye rolling was the rumors that have been circulating about him and the things which are known about him.
What exactly is unsupportable? That Moore is guilty?
Let me make this clear, Joe: I saw that clip on Shapiro's Twitter. I didn't edit anything. Sometimes a Twitter feed will feature a small snipping of an article and lead back to the entire thing. It might have in this case. I have yet to see Shapiro mislead on anything.
It might as well have linked to the whole article. After reading the entire thing, there was nothing that contradicted the highlighted part or made it hard to believe.
-
@roamer_1
Nope, not the same. I explained why.
Part of the problem is that you see them as identical because, based on your experience with one woman, all women are, to quote TOS, lying bitches when they say they’ve been abused. But it’s simply not true.
@CatherineofAragon
Based on my experience of ONE woman, you say? I but related ONE STORY as an example toward my position. I could go on. And on sommore. Not just in salacious cases of a sexual nature - The very same applies between men having a bone to pick. It is the standard in all things.
And the reason it is that way, in places where folks still rule themselves, beyond the reach of the supposed law and order y'all know, is because that standard prevents false accusations, in large part. How then do you prevent or discover a false accuser within this absurdity you recommend? By how you feeeel? Or is the woman just to be believed whole cloth?
It’s easy, extremely easy, to say yeah, you have to have a record of bruises and the woman has to fight back. Do you realize that sometimes a female is too scared to do it? Or is being threatened? You can’t hold a 14 year old responsible for not fighting back and leaving marks.
I am not 'holding her responsible' for not leaving marks. I am saying there is nothing actionable WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Like I said, I believed Broderick, but I wasn't moved by her story. Likewise in this. Whether the stories are believable or not is incidental to the point. The worst injustice is false accusation, because in the aggregate, justice flees. Any accusation can be leveled on a whim, and in that environment justice is meted by an emoting mob - Be careful what you wish for, because the next time, it could be you.
It doesn’t always happen like that. From the start, I’ve said that I take this kind of thing case by case. I don’t start out with assumptions as to innocence or guilt. Yesterday I read about another accuser who just came out. She gave her account, then finished with the claim that Moore asked how old she was, and when she said she was past her teens, he looked very disappointed. That raised a red flag with me. It seemed too neat, too designed to wrap up a point.
Innocence or guilt has nothing to do with it - ALL THAT MATTERS IS THE VERACITY OF THE EVIDENCE.
The thing is, I think you guys, in reacting to those times when men have been falsely accused, tend to go on defense every time.
No, the standard remains the same every time. You want me to tear a man down with no proof at all - none whatsoever.
I might if the guy was a boor and a lout - Like Trump, as an instance - He has no character, and he has already demonstrated himself to be a liar. so I have absolutely no need at all to rise to his defense, nor believe a damn thing he says. When this shit is turned on him, you won't find me rising - I will do nothing. There is nothing to defend. He will have to defend himself.
Now, that is quite another thing in a man of honor, one who conducts himself well. That's why I will rise to defend Cruz, and why I will rise to defend Moore.
Your accusation that I am "reacting to those times when men have been falsely accused, tend to go on defense every time" is as false as it can be. I don't give a shit about anything but honor. And where it is, I'll fight like hell, whether a man or a woman. Where it ain't, they're on their own.
In this case, there ain't enough evidence to amount to a row of pins, and certainly not enough to tear down a lifetime of integrity. I may be wrong about Roy Moore, but these accusations aren't anywhere near proof enough to change my mind.
It ain't whether or not, it's holding against gossip, rumor, and innuendo as sufficient proofs, to protect those falsely accused. That is the point, and I will not be moved from it..
Regarding the media, yeah, I know how they are, but if we’re to the point that we refuse to listen or see anything at all because of them, then we’ve gone round the bend. Not everything is a media attack. Sometimes people just suck.
I have never believed the media. Again, I believe evidence. That's all I'll believe.
-
In the meanwhile down in Bama... picture of sister (who got all the looks, and was valedictorian in HS and college) with Roy Moore. Our votes hold firm... proof or it is hearsay.
We share the same eye features...
(https://s7.postimg.org/5xixa6jt7/Bonnie_Roy_Moore_Doctored.jpg)
-
Juanita Broaddrick…..
In 1997 Juanita Broaddrick filed a sworn affidavit with Paula Jones' lawyers stating there were unfounded rumors and stories circulating "that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies... These allegations are untrue". She said this under oath.
Broaddrick then said in an interview with Dateline NBC that aired on February 24, 1999, that she had indeed been raped by Clinton in 1978, admitting to lying in a sworn affidavit.
However, three weeks after the alleged assault, Broaddrick participated in a small Clinton fundraiser at the home of a local dentist. She claimed she only did so because she was “still in shock”.
At the time of the alleged 1978 rape, she was having an affair with David Broaddrick, who also was married to another person.
So do these inconstancies and changes in Broaddrick’s story, what some might say is a bad reflection of her personal and moral character such as having an affair with a married man while herself being married, and the fact that after the alleged rape, she attended a Clinton fundraiser make her claim untrue? No.
Yes, she has friends who say she told them about the rape contemporaneously, but then again Broaddrick never filed a police report, claiming she was afraid because at the time Clinton was the AG of Arkansas, nor did she go to a hospital where any physical evidence of a rape would have been collected, even if she didn’t want to file charges or name her rapist.
Is this really any different between Clinton’s accusers and many of Moore accusers? Let’s review.
Victims coming forward many years later? – Check
Multiple accusers? – Check
Being afraid to come forward because the man was in a position of power? - Check
A consistent pattern of behavior of the accused? – as yet unproven, but still, Check
The women having told others about what happened contemporaneously? – Check
That perhaps at least one victim had further contact with the alleged abuser after the alleged assault? - Check
Some of the women perhaps not being themselves of a perfect moral character? – Check
Questions about the “timing” of the allegations? - Check
So all I ask is that we try to be consistent.
If we are going to believe without question the word of women accusing those who we don’t like or who are on the opposite side of the political aisle, then we at least should try to be consistent in applying the same standards of when and why we believe women with very similar claims when it involves people we do like and or are our political allies.
@Neverdul
Like I said, I believed Juanita Broderick's tale. But it wasn't actionable. All of what you've written here is moot, because without evidence, whether I believe her or not is without merit, and the accusations are discarded.
And in that, btw, I will reiterate that I had no use for Clinton, as like Trump, he was a known cad, and a proven liar... A long list of bimbo eruptions dogged him his entire career. Actionable? No. The decision must be reserved. But a long and sordid history is in his record.
Shall I rise to defend a serial adulterer against the accusations of other admitted serial adulterers? Doesn't matter a whit to me. None of em were good people. All of them people of low character. I did, however, believe Broderick. I saw truth in what she spoke. But it was the blue dress in the end. Incontrovertible evidence. That is actionable.
I am in fact using the very same standard against Moore. Precisely the same. The difference is his character.
Unlike Clinton, not a whiff of this sort of thing, throughout a long, long career. Not a whiff of any sort of impropriety at all.
If that is worth nothing, then there is no point in honor, or being honorable. That is precisely the cost of allowing gossip to govern this public opinion verdict, rather than the veracity of the evidence.
-
@roamer_1
Based on my experience of ONE woman, you say? I but related ONE STORY as an example toward my position. I could go on. And on sommore. Not just in salacious cases of a sexual nature - The very same applies between men having a bone to pick. It is the standard in all things.
Yeah, one---you described one, so why would I assume differently.
And the reason it is that way, in places where folks still rule themselves, beyond the reach of the supposed law and order y'all know, is because that standard prevents false accusations, in large part. How then do you prevent or discover a false accuser within this absurdity you recommend? By how you feeeel? Or is the woman just to be believed whole cloth?
Roamer, come on, stop talking like you live on a frontier planet. You live in the United States with the rest of us.
I've stated repeatedly, over and over, that I don't assume guilt or innocence of either man or woman. How is that you guys just keep missing me saying that, every time? I wait for information to come in before I make my judgment.
As for "feeeelings", like I said, I weigh the information and the facts, Some of you, on the other hand, are operating as though that saint in a cowboy outfit couldn't have told a lie, much less molested someone. Now that's based on feeling.
Innocence or guilt has nothing to do with it - ALL THAT MATTERS IS THE VERACITY OF THE EVIDENCE.
Yeah, and we have a pretty good amount, by now.
-
@Cyber Liberty
I don’t agree. In this area, a child killer was recently put behind bars (should have been executed) for murders he committed over 50 years ago. There were no issues concerning the testimonies of witnesses.
What happened to those women is as clear in their minds as if it happened last week.
I keep wondering why the fact that this happened 40 years ago somehow makes the story less believeable.
A traumatic occurrence 40 years ago never leaves one's mind.
The fact that the memories are old doesn't make them any less valid, and does not prove exculpatory no matter how much Moore's defenders want it to be.
@CatherineofAragon
-
I keep wondering why the fact that this happened 40 years ago somehow makes the story less believeable.
A traumatic occurrence 40 years ago never leaves one's mind.
The fact that the memories are old doesn't make them any less valid, and does not prove exculpatory no matter how much Moore's defenders want it to be.
@CatherineofAragon
I keep wondering why they kept it to themselves until a critical time right before an election.
-
I keep wondering why the fact that this happened 40 years ago somehow makes the story less believeable.
A traumatic occurrence 40 years ago never leaves one's mind.
The fact that the memories are old doesn't make them any less valid, and does not prove exculpatory no matter how much Moore's defenders want it to be.
How you ever gathered with siblings to discuss early life like I have ( w/ brothers and sisters) and get to retelling events we lived together. We come up with 3 different tells of the same event, some things similar, but often some things totally in disagreement. Yes, there is a reason for statue of limitations in most things except perhaps murder.
Memories get muddled, and then tellings and retellings start to take life. The witnesses of the "hands up, don't shoot" Michael Brown shooting is a perfect example. By the time some get their stories down on paper, it has already been influenced by tales of others, to where you sometimes believe you saw something you didn't. Their interviews were only weeks later, not years.
-
I keep wondering why the fact that this happened 40 years ago somehow makes the story less believeable.
A traumatic occurrence 40 years ago never leaves one's mind.
The fact that the memories are old doesn't make them any less valid, and does not prove exculpatory no matter how much Moore's defenders want it to be.
@CatherineofAragon
@musiclady
It’s denial based on tribalism. And yes, I agree with you.
Bigun has me blocked, but the question he raised in his post has been answered repeatedly. The women never went looking to tell their stories—-not during that long 40 years. The Post went looking for them—-which has nothing to do with the veracity, or not, of the charges.
At least one of the women is a Republican who voted for Trump. So much for the conspiracy theory.
-
How you ever gathered with siblings to discuss early life like I have (brother and sister) and get to retelling events. We come up with 3 different tells of the same event, some things similar, but often some things totally in disagreement. Yes, there is a reason for statue of limitations in most things except perhaps murder.
@Sighlass
The issue is sexual abuse, not the cookout you had when you were fifteen. Research will tell you it stays clear in the minds of the victims.
-
@Sighlass
The issue is sexual abuse, not the cookout you had when you were fifteen. Research will tell you it stays clear in the minds of the victims.
BS, I also was a victim of sexual abuse, or attempted anyway. Had a same sex band director that tried to get me to do some things. Yeah, I remember his proposition line, I remember turning him down, but I couldn't tell you what month it was to save my life now.
Honestly I couldn't even tell you the season it occurred. But then again, like I said my memory just ain't what it used to be.
@CatherineofAragon
-
@musiclady
It’s denial based on tribalism. And yes, I agree with you.
Bigun has me blocked, but the question he raised in his post has been answered repeatedly. The women never went looking to tell their stories—-not during that long 40 years. The Post went looking for them—-which has nothing to do with the veracity, or not, of the charges.
At least one of the women is a Republican who voted for Trump. So much for the conspiracy theory.
@CatherineofAragon
So it's a drag a $100 bill through a trailer park kind of thing! I figured as much!
And just in case you're wondering, someone sent me a link to the post you mentioned my name in. Bye now!
-
BS, I also was a victim of sexual abuse, or attempted anyway. Had a same sex band director that tried to get me to do some things. Yeah, I remember his proposition line, I remember turning him down, but I couldn't tell you what month it was to save my life now.
Honestly I couldn't even tell you the season it occurred. But then again, like I said my memory just ain't what it used to be.
@CatherineofAragon
@Sighlass
And?
-
@CatherineofAragon
So it's a drag a $100 bill through a trailer park kind of thing! I figured as much!
And just in case you're wondering, someone sent me a link to the post you mentioned my name in. Bye now!
@Bigun
No, it’s not. That was disproved a while back, but facts don’t stop you from your Moore fangirling.
Btw, is that how ignore works—-buddies send you links so you can post from behind the safety of the block, lol? I’m sorry you don’t have the guts to post directly to me. Says a lot about your confidence in your argument. Ironically, it’s a very feminine, catty way to operate.
I do think it’s cute that y’all have a little ladies’ sewing circle of support behind the scenes, though. Better have it well-coordinated, because I’m not shutting up.
-
@Bigun
No, it’s not. That was disproved a while back, but facts don’t stop you from your Moore fangirling.
@CatherineofAragon
Actually by your own words you prove it was! And BTW: I seem to have a damned site more FACTS on my side than you and your lynch mob have on yours!
Btw, is that how ignore works—-buddies send you links so you can post from behind the safety of the block, lol? I’m sorry you don’t have the guts to post directly to me. Says a lot about your confidence in your argument. Ironically, it’s a very feminine, catty way to operate.
I do think it’s cute that y’all have a little ladies’ sewing circle of support behind the scenes, though. Better have it well-coordinated, because I’m not shutting up.
You can run your mouth till hell freezes over and I won't care. But when you mention me by name I might respond!
-
@CatherineofAragon
Actually by your own words you prove it was! And BTW: I seem to have a damned site more FACTS on my side than you and your lynch mob have on yours!
You can run your mouth till hell freezes over and I won't care. But when you mention me by name I might respond!
@Bigun
*Sight*
-
BS, I also was a victim of sexual abuse, or attempted anyway. Had a same sex band director that tried to get me to do some things. Yeah, I remember his proposition line, I remember turning him down, but I couldn't tell you what month it was to save my life now.
Honestly I couldn't even tell you the season it occurred. But then again, like I said my memory just ain't what it used to be.
@CatherineofAragon
You are the exception to the rule, THEN.
A person in her fifties is not likely to have forgotten abuse that occurred in her teens.
-
@musiclady
It’s denial based on tribalism. And yes, I agree with you.
Bigun has me blocked, but the question he raised in his post has been answered repeatedly. The women never went looking to tell their stories—-not during that long 40 years. The Post went looking for them—-which has nothing to do with the veracity, or not, of the charges.
At least one of the women is a Republican who voted for Trump. So much for the conspiracy theory.
The loyalty to Moore is remarkable.
To be furious with someone on a website whom you have seen to be an honorable person over months and months because of a politician with whom you have a reasonable but different opinion is odd at best... :shrug:
@CatherineofAragon
-
The loyalty to Moore is remarkable.
To be furious with someone on a website whom you have seen to be an honorable person over months and months because of a politician with whom you have a reasonable but different opinion is odd at best... :shrug:
@CatherineofAragon
@musiclady
Yes, it is. But we saw many Republicans/conservatives subscribe to “win at any cost” last year, and I think we’re just sliding on down that hill. When the governor of a state admits that she’ll vote for Moore even though she believes his accusers, it’s clear that the GOP is so darkly rotten that it needs to be burned down.
-
You are the exception to the rule, THEN.
A person in her fifties is not likely to have forgotten abuse that occurred in her teens.
I'm another exception. I had a drunk goober try to force me to kiss him and then put me in a sort of head lock that was just tight enough for me me not to be able to get out of and I don't remember what I was wearing or even my exact age at the time.
-
The loyalty to Moore is remarkable.
To be furious with someone on a website whom you have seen to be an honorable person over months and months because of a politician with whom you have a reasonable but different opinion is odd at best... :shrug:
@CatherineofAragon
I personally have no problem with anyone's opinions. It's when they start conflating them with facts that I get bothered.
-
I'm another exception. I had a drunk goober try to force me to kiss him and then put me in a sort of head lock that was just tight enough for me me not to be able to get out of and I don't remember what I was wearing or even my exact age at the time.
I've just gotten tired of the entire argument, and find some of the tactics now being employed somewhat unseemly. I'm just going to go silent about it and wait to see what happens, what the people charged with deciding do. All the ills inherent in life area not going to be solved here. :shrug:
-
I've just gotten tired of the entire argument, and find some of the tactics now being employed somewhat unseemly. I'm just going to go silent about it and wait to see what happens, what the people charged with deciding do. All the ills inherent in life area not going to be solved here. :shrug:
I'd much rather get back to discussing what a slug Trump is. ;P
-
I'm another exception. I had a drunk goober try to force me to kiss him and then put me in a sort of head lock that was just tight enough for me me not to be able to get out of and I don't remember what I was wearing or even my exact age at the time.
The problem is with assuming that others' experiences are the same as your own and assuming that the majority experience is wrong.
I find it interesting that two victims of assault showed up quickly on this thread. Perhaps it's because more of this garbage occurs than a few of the menfolk around here care to admit and there really isn't a reason to assume a politician hasn't done anything wrong....
-
I personally have no problem with anyone's opinions. It's when they start conflating them with facts that I get bothered.
Which perhaps you, yourself have done?? :shrug:
-
Previously, I avoided comment about Judge Moore in this space and elsewhere because I did not know what, or who to believe.
The pattern of behavior now clearly exhibited by Moore is troubling, to say the least. His lawyerly denials ring oddly hollow. But the sudden appearance of purported victims in the company of such manipulative self-promoters as Gloria Allred raises its own set of reasonable doubts.
There is also the troubling matter of tribal loyalties in public life, leading many to reflexively defend or denounce a person accused of abusive behavior, not on the basis of known facts, but upon one's political fealty.
I do not know, nor in truth does anyone but Judge Moore and his accusers, know for certain what happened or did not happen between them. But any honest appraisal must depend first on what is factually known, then upon what can be observed by behavior, and finally, by reference to the lessons imparted by one's own knowledge and experience.
Speaking only for myself, I have observed behavior on the part of Moore that raises my suspicions, as amplified by personal experiences with predators and those of women very, very close to me who have been assaulted by them.
Where there is smoke, there is often - but not always - fire. And what might be claimed by some to be a four-alarm blaze might simply be a kitchen grease fire. Once again, I don't know what is the case here, but I smell something for certain, and it is not the odor of pure innocence.
-
The problem is with assuming that others' experiences are the same as your own and assuming that the majority experience is wrong.
I find it interesting that two victims of assault showed up quickly on this thread. Perhaps it's because more of this garbage occurs than a few of the menfolk around here care to admit and there really isn't a reason to assume a politician hasn't done anything wrong....
If you're counting me as one of the two; first off, I am not a victim, secondly this thread had been ongoing for four freaking days and the overall issue for over a week so that doesn't seem very quick to me.
As I have been reading through the comments, it seems to me there's some assuming going on on both sides of the issue. We all use our own life experiences to formulate opinions on many issues.
-
I'd much rather get back to discussing what a slug Trump is. ;P
Me Too, that affects all of us on a daily basis.
-
@musiclady
Yes, it is. But we saw many Republicans/conservatives subscribe to “win at any cost” last year, and I think we’re just sliding on down that hill. When the governor of a state admits that she’ll vote for Moore even though she believes his accusers, it’s clear that the GOP is so darkly rotten that it needs to be burned down.
I agree that the trend is very bad.
And the trend is the reason I can no longer call myself a Republican.
The GOP has always been flawed, but they have always (at least publicly) stood strong for morality.
That is clearly no longer the case.
-
Me Too, that affects all of us on a daily basis.
In a very real way, so does this.
-
If you're counting me as one of the two; first off, I am not a victim, secondly this thread had been ongoing for four freaking days and the overall issue for over a week so that doesn't seem very quick to me.
As I have been reading through the comments, it seems to me there's some assuming going on on both sides of the issue. We all use our own life experiences to formulate opinions on many issues.
When I referred to "quickly" it was because two people responded to my comment in a very short time, and it has nothing to do with the length of the thread.
But the point you bring up is part of the problem. There are statistics out there apart from just personal experiences that ought to be considered. I'm not taking sides on the issue because we, frankly, don't know the "facts" that are relevant to the case. What I do know is that we can't assume Moore is guilty because there are too many facts still unknown, and we can't assume he is innocent because it's right before an election and it happened 40 years ago.
People on both sides are bringing feelings into the discussion because that's what we do here. The problem for me is when people dismiss data because of their feelings, and won't look at what's actually there with any manner of objectivity.
-
I'd much rather get back to discussing what a slug Trump is. ;P
Life was easier then. :nometalk:
-
I agree that the trend is very bad.
And the trend is the reason I can no longer call myself a Republican.
The GOP has always been flawed, but they have always (at least publicly) stood strong for morality.
That is clearly no longer the case.
@musiclady
At this point, I pretty much agree with Matt Walsh when he recently said that even conservatism has ceased to mean anything.
-
@musiclady
At this point, I pretty much agree with Matt Walsh when he recently said that even conservatism has ceased to mean anything.
Clearly it doesn't mean anything.
It's been eroding for a long time, but I agree that the term is now meaningless. Populist immorality is not conservative, no matter how much screaming there is about it claiming it is.
@CatherineofAragon
-
Look around at out own little microcosm of the world here. We have far leftists coming here and insisting what conservatives and Christians should believe, and these are neither Christian nor conservative values.
Christians are now to accept and celebrate all manners of aberrant behavior because "tolerance." Conservatives are now being instructed that gun control and universal health care are now conservative values.
And any politician promising to check these trends is to be destroyed at any cost necessary, while the press applauds. It's not a pleasant time to be either Christian or conservative.
-
Look around at out own little microcosm of the world here. We have far leftists coming here and insisting what conservatives and Christians should believe, and these are neither Christian nor conservative values.
Christians are now to accept and celebrate all manners of aberrant behavior because "tolerance." Conservatives are now being instructed that gun control and universal health care are now conservative values.
And any politician promising to check these trends is to be destroyed at any cost necessary, while the press applauds. It's not a pleasant time to be either Christian or conservative.
@Cyber Liberty
Including child molestation, per the Alabama governor.
-
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/10/Laura-Ingraham-Book-Cover-Getty.jpg)
(https://trofire.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/trump_reagan_67453685438.jpg)
For the record, Reagan was accused.
For the record, I will honor the most pro-life administration ever, as the article was posted in the politics section.
Hey, but if an invasion happens and Christians who have been in the Middle East for 2000 years are now persecuted and may even be eradicated, we can hail that 'morality'.
Don't talk to us about morality.
-
Don't talk to us about morality.
OK. We won't, Tom, if you don't want us to.
-
@Cyber Liberty
Including child molestation, per the Alabama governor.
She said she didn't "disbelieve" the accusation, which is politician-speak for she didn't believe it either. As typical of politicians, it's a turn of phrase that allows everybody to take whatever meaning they desire. That's why I usually don't believe politicians.
They usually don't speak in ways to enlighten, they speak in ways to allow everybody to confirm their own internal templates...what they already believe. Is it a lie? Is it a truth? Who knows. I don't, and that bit from the Governor doesn't move that ball either way down my field. Makes me glad I'm not a voter in AL, who are the people who must ultimately decide.
I've given up arguing about it, because I don't think I'll ever know for sure. This entire spectacle will likely be dropped by a disinterested Press as soon as it's no longer effective to whatever it is they are advocating. This is the problem with the Press we have today, they don't report, they push people into doing what they want.
-
Reagan is often called a populist, Reagan was also accused. End of.
-
Even with people bringing up cases such as Granpa Ned marrying your grandmother at 16 years old, Moore not denying he might have dated teenagers is very questionable to me. And the whole Mall deal, not debunked from what I've seen, bottomline, no records exist, seem to have everyone saying he played the field, not that he was looking for a spouse.
-
She said she didn't "disbelieve" the accusation, which is politician-speak for she didn't believe it either. As typical of politicians, it's a turn of phrase that allows everybody to take whatever meaning they desire. That's why I usually don't believe politicians.
They usually don't speak in ways to enlighten, they speak in ways to allow everybody to confirm their own internal templates...what they already believe. Is it a lie? Is it a truth? Who knows. I don't, and that bit from the Governor doesn't move that ball either way down my field. Makes me glad I'm not a voter in AL, who are the people who must ultimately decide.
I've given up arguing about it, because I don't think I'll ever know for sure. This entire spectacle will likely be dropped by a disinterested Press as soon as it's no longer effective to whatever it is they are advocating. This is the problem with the Press we have today, they don't report, they push people into doing what they want.
@Cyber Liberty
Even if you buy that it's only political-speak, and I don't, it's just as bad. There are voters who aren't politically astute who will listen to her and go by her example. They'll say, yeah, we have to support the GOP no matter what. They'll rationalize Moore's behavior any way they can. This is why I meant it when I said he's not only going to win, he'll run for president someday.
-
@Cyber Liberty
Even if you buy that it's only political-speak, and I don't, it's just as bad. There are voters who aren't politically astute who will listen to her and go by her example. They'll say, yeah, we have to support the GOP no matter what. They'll rationalize Moore's behavior any way they can. This is why I meant it when I said he's not only going to win, he'll run for president someday.
I have no idea how this will play out, but I can guess we'll never have an answer that will satisfy all as to what happened many years ago. It's like the Obama Birth Certificate thing. Too many people stand to benefit by keeping the question alive. If Moore loses, his head on a pike will serve as a warning to others. If he wins, he'll always have the sword hanging if he doesn't do what he's told. He won't be President, even a Royal Ted Kennedy never quite overcame that scandal. Moore would never get much support outside of the five or so "deep south" states.
The danger I see is issues like this can be so polarizing people walk away from the wreckage forever doubting once fast friends. I would not be surprised to learn that was actually the major purpose of this whole kerfuffle: To drive a wedge between natural allies.
-
When I referred to "quickly" it was because two people responded to my comment in a very short time, and it has nothing to do with the length of the thread.
Kind of like how quickly all of Moore's accusers chimed in in a very order?
But the point you bring up is part of the problem. There are statistics out there apart from just personal experiences that ought to be considered. I'm not taking sides on the issue because we, frankly, don't know the "facts" that are relevant to the case. What I do know is that we can't assume Moore is guilty because there are too many facts still unknown, and we can't assume he is innocent because it's right before an election and it happened 40 years ago.
People on both sides are bringing feelings into the discussion because that's what we do here. The problem for me is when people dismiss data because of their feelings, and won't look at what's actually there with any manner of objectivity.
I don't care about statistics. Like you say, I don't know what the truth is in the Moore case(s), and so I would not be prepared to make a decision that could profoundly alter a man's life and career.
-
Kind of like how quickly all of Moore's accusers chimed in in a very order?
One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other. If there are two people who have been molested (and you're not the only ones) that comment on a single thread in a short time, it is a pervasive problem.
THAT was my point. (It wasn't really that complicated).
I don't care about statistics. Like you say, I don't know what the truth is in the Moore case(s), and so I would not be prepared to make a decision that could profoundly alter a man's life and career.
Well, if you don't care about statistics, then there is no need to present evidence, is there?
I've been saying all along there is no way to know the truth here............. yet. But I wouldn't go so far as to try to silence the accusers if they're telling the truth, just because it's going to ruin a man's career.
It's a dangerous precedent. (No, actually, it's been the way things have worked with men's assaults against women for a very long time. Maybe it needs to end sometime?)
-
Well, if you don't care about statistics, then there is no need to present evidence, is there?
I've been saying all along there is no way to know the truth here............. yet. But I wouldn't go so far as to try to silence the accusers if they're telling the truth, just because it's going to ruin a man's career.
It's a dangerous precedent. (No, actually, it's been the way things have worked with men's assaults against women for a very long time. Maybe it needs to end sometime?)
I have no clue how you jumped from me not caring about statistics to mean me not caring about evidence. I also have never said, and I don't recall anyone else here saying, that the women should be silenced.
-
The more you dig on this guy, the less stellar his character appears.
http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/10/tax_records_show_moore_is_a_ma.html (http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/10/tax_records_show_moore_is_a_ma.html)
"and despite denials by Moore, the former Alabama Chief Justice had been receiving regular compensation from the nonprofit.
[P]rivately, Moore had arranged to receive a salary of $180,000 a year for part-time work at the Foundation for Moral Law, internal charity documents show," the Post reported. "He collected more than $1 million as president from 2007 to 2012, compensation that far surpassed what the group disclosed in its public tax filings most of those years."
And that's in addition to salary his wife, Kayla Moore, drew after she took over as the nonprofit's executive director, and also money paid to two of the Moores' children."
-
The more you dig on this guy, the less stellar his character appears.
http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/10/tax_records_show_moore_is_a_ma.html (http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/10/tax_records_show_moore_is_a_ma.html)
"and despite denials by Moore, the former Alabama Chief Justice had been receiving regular compensation from the nonprofit.
[P]rivately, Moore had arranged to receive a salary of $180,000 a year for part-time work at the Foundation for Moral Law, internal charity documents show," the Post reported. "He collected more than $1 million as president from 2007 to 2012, compensation that far surpassed what the group disclosed in its public tax filings most of those years."
And that's in addition to salary his wife, Kayla Moore, drew after she took over as the nonprofit's executive director, and also money paid to two of the Moores' children."
That's pretty interesting. I wonder of that will become as widely known as the other stuff? It should.
-
I have no clue how you jumped from me not caring about statistics to mean me not caring about evidence. I also have never said, and I don't recall anyone else here saying, that the women should be silenced.
Statistics are part of evidence. Dismissing 40 year old memories because you don't have them while ignoring statistics is part of not caring about this particular evidence.
As for the wish for silence, I've read a whole lot of comments completely dismissing everythng these women have said as politically motivated without the slightest regard for the possibility that they are telling the truth.
That is tantamount to wanting them to shut up.
What we both want here is the truth. And I don't think either of us wants either side silenced.
I would suggest that there are those who do, however........... at least until after the election.
-
Probably the worst tendency I'm seeing is this discussion is the assumption of others' motivations. "You only believe (argument) because you are willing to do anything to win."
I don't find that particularly constructive. Quite the opposite, actually.
-
Statistics are part of evidence. Dismissing 40 year old memories because you don't have them while ignoring statistics is part of not caring about this particular evidence.
As for the wish for silence, I've read a whole lot of comments completely dismissing everythng these women have said as politically motivated without the slightest regard for the possibility that they are telling the truth.
That is tantamount to wanting them to shut up.
What we both want here is the truth. And I don't think either of us wants either side silenced.
I would suggest that there are those who do, however........... at least until after the election.
You're going to have to be clearer on how statistics are evidence with regards to this case, because I am not agreeing with that at all right now. In my mind statistics, in order to be anywhere near accurate, must include thousands of points of data and be appropriately classified and correlated.
-
That's pretty interesting. I wonder of that will become as widely known as the other stuff? It should.
@Cyber Liberty
Honestly? I doubt it...IMO the rest will eclipse it.
-
You're going to have to be clearer on how statistics are evidence with regards to this case, because I am not agreeing with that at all right now. In my mind statistics, in order to be anywhere near accurate, must include thousands of points of data and be appropriately classified and correlated.
The implications of statistics is important, which is why entire College-level classes are devoted to it. If you toss a penny and you get heads 49 times, what are the odds the 50th toss will be tails? A cursory glance at the statics tells you it still 50-50, but a knowledge of the cumulative effects of the 49 tosses suggest placing a bet against the heads call would be prudent.
I can't see anything to "statistically" suggest this Moore fellow is guilty of anything. It's going to take some evidence to convince me of that.
-
@Cyber Liberty
Honestly? I doubt it...IMO the rest will eclipse it.
I doubt it too, and I think that's reflects poorly on this election. In an otherwise normal election this would be a major story today.
-
That's pretty interesting. I wonder of that will become as widely known as the other stuff? It should.
That story came out weeks before the abuse allegations and didn't get any legs then.
-
That story came out weeks before the abuse allegations and didn't get any legs then.
Why? Was there a problem with the evidence? That's usually why hit stories like that fail.
-
The implications of statistics is important, which is why entire College-level classes are devoted to it. If you toss a penny and you get heads 49 times, what are the odds the 50th toss will be tails? A cursory glance at the statics tells you it still 50-50, but a knowledge of the cumulative effects of the 49 tosses suggest placing a bet against the heads call would be prudent.
I can't see anything to "statistically" suggest this Moore fellow is guilty of anything. It's going to take some evidence to convince me of that.
Those types of statistics would not help me determine whether any individual is guilty or not. I think we all intuitively know that the chance of getting a 50th tails is pretty damn low, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
-
Why? Was there a problem with the evidence? That's usually why hit stories like that fail.
As I recall what was being presented wasn't exactly the full story, but I would have to go back and find them to be certain. At least one, but I believe more, articles about it were posted here.
-
Those types of statistics would not help me determine whether any individual is guilty or not. I think we all intuitively know that the chance of getting a 50th tails is pretty damn low, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
Bingo. That's the point.
-
Roamer, come on, stop talking like you live on a frontier planet. You live in the United States with the rest of us.
@CatherineofAragon
Obviously different from where you are (which surprises the hell out of me)... As I have opined elsewhere, it seems the defenders of Moore on his character tend to be Western men - And yes, it is still very much the frontier here. In town, I'd reckon, somewhat the same, but 5 miles from town, cops are far, far between, and mainly for bringing the body bags. Folks govern themselves here, necessarily. I am sure that is still so back in the hollers in Appalachia too, and in the Ozarks and swamps, but here, that is multiplied by vast distance.
I've stated repeatedly, over and over, that I don't assume guilt or innocence of either man or woman. How is that you guys just keep missing me saying that, every time? I wait for information to come in before I make my judgment.
Yet with nothing but hearsay, you are determined to destroy the man's character.
As for "feeeelings", like I said, I weigh the information and the facts, Some of you, on the other hand, are operating as though that saint in a cowboy outfit couldn't have told a lie, much less molested someone. Now that's based on feeling.
Yeah, and we have a pretty good amount, by now.
No, really you have nothing. You have uncorroborated gossip, extended by innuendo. The only hard evidence (and that only pointing toward Moore knowing the accuser, and lying about his ever being to the diner in question) you have is being reasonably challenged, and should be set aside until determined. Other than that, *bupkis*.
And on top of that, each new act in the saga specifically refutes statements by Moore, and adds nothing else, other than the refutation.
Moore says he doesn't know the gal, and says he never frequented the diner, and abracadabra! the yearbook shows up to specifically refute those statements. He says dating young girls is not something he did particularly, and abracadabra, another player steps forward , adding nothing to the conversation except the words that Moore supposedly 'does it all the time', with reference to dating 17 yo girls.
It is so blatantly constructed to discredit the man, so blatantly political in nature, that I can't see how anyone would lend it any sort of credence to begin with. But even if you do, there is nothing there to hang your hat on. Nothing. Just waggin tongues, and that very likely politically driven.
I could give a shit about his cowboy outfit and him being a saint. It is his record that speaks volumes. And that cannot be denied.
-
The implications of statistics is important, which is why entire College-level classes are devoted to it. If you toss a penny and you get heads 49 times, what are the odds the 50th toss will be tails? A cursory glance at the statics tells you it still 50-50, but a knowledge of the cumulative effects of the 49 tosses suggest placing a bet against the heads call would be prudent.
I'll take that bet any day of the week.
The odds of heads are at least 50/50 (perfect coin). However, the 49 in a row would suggest a strong possibility that the coin is NOT perfect, making heads the most likely outcome (with the most likely scenario being a two headed penny).
-
@CatherineofAragon
Obviously different from where you are (which surprises the hell out of me)... As I have opined elsewhere, it seems the defenders of Moore on his character tend to be Western men - And yes, it is still very much the frontier here. In town, I'd reckon, somewhat the same, but 5 miles from town, cops are far, far between, and mainly for bringing the body bags. Folks govern themselves here, necessarily. I am sure that is still so back in the hollers in Appalachia too, and in the Ozarks and swamps, but here, that is multiplied by vast distance.
Yet with nothing but hearsay, you are determined to destroy the man's character.
No, really you have nothing. You have uncorroborated gossip, extended by innuendo. The only hard evidence (and that only pointing toward Moore knowing the accuser, and lying about his ever being to the diner in question) you have is being reasonably challenged, and should be set aside until determined. Other than that, *bupkis*.
And on top of that, each new act in the saga specifically refutes statements by Moore, and adds nothing else, other than the refutation.
Moore says he doesn't know the gal, and says he never frequented the diner, and abracadabra! the yearbook shows up to specifically refute those statements. He says dating young girls is not something he did particularly, and abracadabra, another player steps forward , adding nothing to the conversation except the words that Moore supposedly 'does it all the time', with reference to dating 17 yo girls.
It is so blatantly constructed to discredit the man, so blatantly political in nature, that I can't see how anyone would lend it any sort of credence to begin with. But even if you do, there is nothing there to hang your hat on. Nothing. Just waggin tongues, and that very likely politically driven.
I could give a shit about his cowboy outfit and him being a saint. It is his record that speaks volumes. And that cannot be denied.
@roamer_1
I don't know why you're surprised? I never said I live in Appalachia. I'm in central Virginia, in a rural farming community. I'm one minute from a state highway and twelve from a fairly large (by my standards---80K) city. It's redneck country, nevertheless.
We have a lot more than hearsay, but regardless, I don't think he has any character to be destroyed. The more I read about him, the more convinced I am that he's a charlatan and a liar, just like Trump.
I posted this on another thread:
http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/10/tax_records_show_moore_is_a_ma.html
"and despite denials by Moore, the former Alabama Chief Justice had been receiving regular compensation from the nonprofit.
[P]rivately, Moore had arranged to receive a salary of $180,000 a year for part-time work at the Foundation for Moral Law, internal charity documents show," the Post reported. "He collected more than $1 million as president from 2007 to 2012, compensation that far surpassed what the group disclosed in its public tax filings most of those years."
And that's in addition to salary his wife, Kayla Moore, drew after she took over as the nonprofit's executive director, and also money paid to two of the Moores' children."
EDIT: I didn't post it on another thread, I posted it on this one. I can't keep track of these damn things. I'm going for a walk.
-
@musiclady
Yes, it is. But we saw many Republicans/conservatives subscribe to “win at any cost” last year, and I think we’re just sliding on down that hill. When the governor of a state admits that she’ll vote for Moore even though she believes his accusers, it’s clear that the GOP is so darkly rotten that it needs to be burned down.
The governor's statements, quoted in an article here:http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/360946-alabama-governor-believes-moore-accusers-but-will-vote-for-moore-anyway (http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/360946-alabama-governor-believes-moore-accusers-but-will-vote-for-moore-anyway) "I certainly have no reason to disbelieve any of them," she said. "The timing is a little curious. But at the same time, I have no reason to disbelieve them."
Ivey said earlier this week that she wouldn’t change her vote and would “hold [her] judgement until we get more of the facts” following allegations that Moore had a sexual encounter with a minor when he was in his 30s.
Those are carefully parsed words which hedge her women's vote for when she comes up for reelection against the possibility that the poo might stick to the wall, but leave her an out if it doesn't.
Hardly an overwhelming support of the allegations, more like weasel words--a long way from saying 'I think he's guilty but I'm going to vote for him anyway'.
@CatherineofAragon I'll ping you when I reply to your posts if you will link the sources of your information the first time you post it. Fair enough?
-
Bingo. That's the point.
Oh good. Sometimes the point flies right over my silly head.
-
You're going to have to be clearer on how statistics are evidence with regards to this case, because I am not agreeing with that at all right now. In my mind statistics, in order to be anywhere near accurate, must include thousands of points of data and be appropriately classified and correlated.
I'm going to cede your point on the stats/evidence argument since I'm not bright enough to explain my position clearly. :dx1:
I think overall, we are in agreement here, and I never like to debate people with whom I agree. :beer:
-
It is so blatantly constructed to discredit the man, so blatantly political in nature, that I can't see how anyone would lend it any sort of credence to begin with. But even if you do, there is nothing there to hang your hat on. Nothing. Just waggin tongues, and that very likely politically driven.
I could give a shit about his cowboy outfit and him being a saint. It is his record that speaks volumes. And that cannot be denied.
Very well said. Thanks.
-
I'm going to cede your point on the stats/evidence argument since I'm not bright enough to explain my position clearly. :dx1:
I think overall, we are in agreement here, and I never like to debate people with whom I agree. :beer:
^-^ It seems to me that almost all of us are in agreement, except that the words get in the way sometimes.
-
Oh good. Sometimes the point flies right over my silly head.
We're two silly people passing like ships through a silly night.
-
I'll take that bet any day of the week.
The odds of heads are at least 50/50 (perfect coin). However, the 49 in a row would suggest a strong possibility that the coin is NOT perfect, making heads the most likely outcome (with the most likely scenario being a two headed penny).
OK, I did not stipulate the tosser of the coin was cheating by using a weighted of two-faced coin....
-
^-^ It seems to me that almost all of us are in agreement, except that the words get in the way sometimes.
Boy howdy, ain't THAT the truth!!
-
I don't know why you're surprised? I never said I live in Appalachia. I'm in central Virginia, in a rural farming community. I'm one minute from a state highway and twelve from a fairly large (by my standards---80K) city. It's redneck country, nevertheless.
@CatherineofAragon
As a point of order, I didn't suppose you were from Appalachia - I merely said that areas in Appalachia, the Ozarks, and the big swamps are more likely to be like here (not merely rural, but wild), as in past experience, I have found folks from there to be more akin in thinking - And I am finding out that's a special set, and that rednecks ain't rednecks wherever you go after all.
Nor Conservatives. I had always thought 'innocent until proven guilty' to be foundational in Christian and Conservative thought. Evidently I am mistaken. And that is sad.
We have a lot more than hearsay, but regardless, I don't think he has any character to be destroyed. The more I read about him, the more convinced I am that he's a charlatan and a liar, just like Trump.
I posted this on another thread:
http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/10/tax_records_show_moore_is_a_ma.html
"and despite denials by Moore, the former Alabama Chief Justice had been receiving regular compensation from the nonprofit.
[P]rivately, Moore had arranged to receive a salary of $180,000 a year for part-time work at the Foundation for Moral Law, internal charity documents show," the Post reported. "He collected more than $1 million as president from 2007 to 2012, compensation that far surpassed what the group disclosed in its public tax filings most of those years."
And that's in addition to salary his wife, Kayla Moore, drew after she took over as the nonprofit's executive director, and also money paid to two of the Moores' children."
EDIT: I didn't post it on another thread, I posted it on this one. I can't keep track of these damn things. I'm going for a walk.
I saw it long ago, with a reasonable reply from Moore. I will try to track that down for you, but it will be a while. I am in the middle of things.
As to the rest, nothing. Not a whiff of actual evidence. None.
-
We're two silly people passing like ships through a silly night.
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/20/20d704c1419b92f2b8b8c3810671b82c832b844cf7641ac73a92455096213081.jpg)
-
OK, I did not stipulate the tosser of the coin was cheating by using a weighted of two-faced coin....
Terms unclear. Guilty!
-
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/20/20d704c1419b92f2b8b8c3810671b82c832b844cf7641ac73a92455096213081.jpg)
Don't get me started on Tomfoolery...
-
Don't get me started on Tomfoolery...
Oh I like him! He's fun!
-
Terms unclear. Guilty!
'Firmtive. Punishment is 40 lashes with a wet noodle.
-
@CatherineofAragon
As a point of order, I didn't suppose you were from Appalachia - I merely said that areas in Appalachia, the Ozarks, and the big swamps are more likely to be like here (not merely rural, but wild), as in past experience, I have found folks from there to be more akin in thinking - And I am finding out that's a special set, and that rednecks ain't rednecks wherever you go after all.
Nor Conservatives. I had always thought 'innocent until proven guilty' to be foundational in Christian and Conservative thought. Evidently I am mistaken. And that is sad.
I saw it long ago, with a reasonable reply from Moore. I will try to track that down for you, but it will be a while. I am in the middle of things.
As to the rest, nothing. Not a whiff of actual evidence. None.
@roamer_1
Well, damn, maybe someday I can aspire to be in that special set. I guess I just don’t measure up, huh?
Just kidding. I’m fine where I am, using my common sense.
-
^-^ It seems to me that almost all of us are in agreement, except that the words get in the way sometimes.
Now we're quoting shitty Gloria Estefan songs on the never ending Moore hell threads?
I'm deleting my account here immediately. TBR is now officially lost.
(https://is3-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Music128/v4/0e/78/74/0e78742e-cfaa-2508-c482-b084bf6fa0c4/074644076929.jpg/1200x630bb.jpg)
-
Now we're quoting shitty Gloria Estefan songs on the never ending Moore hell threads?
I'm deleting my account here immediately. TBR is now officially lost.
WTF are you talking about? Do I really seem like the type of person that would listen to Gloria Estefan?
-
Whodat? I'm sorry Frank, but you will have to provide a better accounting than that if you want to be deleted.
-
Now we're quoting shitty Gloria Estefan songs on the never ending Moore hell threads?
I'm deleting my account here immediately. TBR is now officially lost.
(https://is3-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Music128/v4/0e/78/74/0e78742e-cfaa-2508-c482-b084bf6fa0c4/074644076929.jpg/1200x630bb.jpg)
Frank, not to be a pain, but how did you know the lyrics to a sh*tty Gloria Estefan song well enough to recognize that quote?
-
Frank, not to be a pain, but how did you know the lyrics to a sh*tty Gloria Estefan song well enough to recognize that quote?
Ooooooooooooooo..................... Zingggggg!!!
888high58888