Marine Colonel Announces He’s Running Against Roy Moore: ‘Hold My Beer’

[skeeter]

Don't be cute.  Use your google skills.

Toss out the charge and then invite others to disprove it.

Neatly summarizing this entire farce.

[SirLinksALot]

Don't be cute.  Use your google skills.

You are doing a very good job of NOT ANSWERING MY QUESTION. I'll take that as a "No, he did not violate any law" until you provide me with an answer.

[Emjay]

and what qualifies the Col any more then Moore?

Not a dam thing.

And the article didn't say what kind of 'business' he has been running.  I don't care enough about him to look it up.

But he isn't the only soldier running.

After graduating from West Point in 1969, Moore served in Germany as a lieutenant and then he was promoted to captain and given command of the 188th Military Police Company in Vietnam in 1971.

That's from an article I posting about fragging towards the end of the Viet Nam war.

[DiogenesLamp]

I don't "condemn" him because he's a Christian.  You've been huffing the same paint that INVAR has, it appears. 

The State of Alabama removed him as a sitting judge on two occasions for refusing to follow the law.   Does the State of Alabama condemn him for his Christianity, too?

Adherence to the rule of law is critical to the success of a Constitutional republic.

There you go again with your bullsh*t claims as to what the law really is.    You let idiot Kook judges change it at whim,  and then demand we all obey their newly discovered crapfest of "law." 


No.  Putting things back to normal require us to discard and dismiss all this made up baloney about what the law means.   


No,   the 14th amendment does not mean homosexuals have a right to hump each other.    It does not mean women can murder their babies.   It does not mean that States must prohibit all endorsement of religion.   It does not make "anchor babies"  into US Citizens.   


All of these things represent misinterpretations of law.   They do not represent proper law,  they represent a false "law."    They are at odds with the fundamental principles governing our nation,  and they must be rebuked.   

[INVAR]

There you go again with your bullsh*t claims as to what the law really is....

No,   the 14th amendment does not mean homosexuals have a right to hump each other.    It does not mean women can murder their babies.   It does not mean that States must prohibit all endorsement of religion.   It does not make "anchor babies"  into US Citizens...

They are at odds with the fundamental principles governing our nation,  and they must be rebuked.

Likewise those who PUSH that bullshit as legitimate and legal.

They too should be rebuked at every turn.  For they are nothing more than tyrants and supporters of tyranny themselves.

No matter how clever they think they are in disguising what they really are.

[Jazzhead]

There you go again with your bullsh*t claims as to what the law really is.    You let idiot Kook judges change it at whim,  and then demand we all obey their newly discovered crapfest of "law." 


 

I'm not letting "idiot kook judges" do anything.  It was the State of Alabama that removed Moore on two occasions for violating his oath of office by refusing to follow the law. 

You and Roy Moore each seem to think you're entitled to be laws unto yourselves.  That's not how it works in a Constitutional republic. 

So kiss my ass with your nihilist charge regarding my "bullsh1t claims".   The State of Alabama knows that Roy Moore is a lawless hypocrite.       

[Silver Pines]

Yeah. And I notice you took your sweet time combing the archives for your collection of "So There's" too.

@To-Whose-Benefit?

I was typing on my phone, drinking coffee, and taking care of a couple of things.  You can do better than that.

Still no response, then?

[DiogenesLamp]

Likewise those who PUSH that bullshit as legitimate and legal.

They too should be rebuked at every turn.  For they are nothing more than tyrants and supporters of tyranny themselves.

Exactly. 

The tyranny is from those who take it upon themselves to thrust upon the public false law based on their own personal whim and contrary to the consent of the governed.   


They and their false law are entitled to no respect whatsoever.  Indeed,  it is our duty to fight them in any manner possible. 

[Silver Pines]

   Where does the line form?  I was accused of voting for hellary last week on this very Forum.

@corbe

Over here, and bring wine!

[Silver Pines]

Well said and persuasive, CofA!   

It's time for those who support Roy Moore to be honest about it -  the veracity of the charges is irrelevant to them.   The objective is to defeat the Democrat.   "He may be a pervert, but he's our pervert".   

I'd like to see a Republican in the Senate, too.  That's why early on I and so many others urged Moore to step down.  But Moore couldn't be persuaded, and now it's him or Doug Jones. 

That means it will be Doug Jones.  Don't like it?   Then put the blame squarely where it belongs - on Roy Moore.

@Jazzhead   

Thanks, and I agree. 

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

@To-Whose-Benefit?

I was typing on my phone, drinking coffee, and taking care of a couple of things.  You can do better than that.

Still no response, then?

I was busy scanning other threads.


All the Proof you've posted is Circumstantial Evidence which an honest judge would instruct the jury to disregard in their deliberations.

[Jazzhead]

They and their false law are entitled to no respect whatsoever.  Indeed,  it is our duty to fight them in any manner possible.

Yes, but only if you reject the rule of law and prefer a true tyranny - akin to a Christian form of sharia law - to that of a Constitutional republic.   

We are nation of laws, not of men - and certainly not of clerics and self-appointed religious police.   

[Silver Pines]

Awww Shucks.

And this after I've been excoriated for laughing out loud in bold face, all caps, and large font.

Taught Me my manners it did. Yessir!


AH HAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 :thumbsup3:

@To-Whose-Benefit?

Well, you’ve whined about it twice, so my advice would be to try and shrug it off. 

Still no response to my earlier post?

[skeeter]

Yes, but only if you reject the rule of law and prefer a true tyranny - akin to a Christian form of sharia law - to that of a Constitutional republic.   

We are nation of laws, not of men - and certainly not of clerics and self-appointed religious police.

You just can't help but go over the top, can you.

All you are doing is reinforcing the suspicion many here have, myself included, that for all the moralizing and finger wagging you're real problem with Moore is his outspoken Christianity.

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm not letting "idiot kook judges" do anything.  It was the State of Alabama that removed Moore on two occasions for violating his oath of office by refusing to follow the law. 

They were violating their oath by lending credence to fake, made up crap which Idiot Federal Judges call "law."   Moore was the only one adhering to his oath of office.   


Defiance of Idiot/Lying federal judges is duty to country.   

You and Roy Moore each seem to think you're entitled to be laws unto yourselves.  That's not how it works in a Constitutional republic. 

I am tired of hearing you talk about how a Constitutional Republic is supposed to work when you support the making up of fake and ridiculous claims of legislative intent in the law.    Refusing to adhere to legislative intent is what undermines the rule of law.   



The Congress of 1868 did *NOT*   pass a "homosexual intercourse" law.    They did not pass a "murder your baby" law.   They did not pass a "ban Christianity from State Government"  law.   


All of these things are a deliberate misreading of the intent of the Congress of 1868.   Their intent was to secure the rights of freed slaves,  and prohibiting states from infringing upon these newly acquired rights. 


AND NOTHING ELSE!!!!!   

[Silver Pines]

I was busy scanning other threads.


All the Proof you've posted is Circumstantial Evidence which an honest judge would instruct the jury to disregard in their deliberations.

@To-Whose-Benefit?

Well, you’re not busy now, apparently.  You want to address it a little more specifically than plugging your ears, covering your eyes, and ignoring?

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes, but only if you reject the rule of law and prefer a true tyranny - akin to a Christian form of sharia law - to that of a Constitutional republic.   

The only tyranny of which we have suffered is from Federal Judges exceeding the bounds of their authority in making utterly ridiculous and nonsensical claims as to legislative intent. 

I have read the debates on the 14th amendment.   You will find no mention of homosexuals in them.  You will find no mention of women being allowed to kill their babies in them.   You will find no mention of banning the Christian religion in the states in those debates.   You *WILL*  find a discussion about whether or not "anchor babies"   would be American Citizens,   but in that discussion you will discover the Chief Architect of the law,  (John Bingham)   assures everyone that this will not happen.   


Judges make up false law,  precisely to get around legislative intent that does not speak to the result they want.     The nation has no obligation to respect this fake law,  and indeed a duty to not only oppose it,  but to forcefully punish anyone who would usurp the authority of the legislative branch for their own personal preferences. 

We are nation of laws, not of men - and certainly not of clerics and self-appointed religious police.

If you believed that,  you would not advocate Judges making up fake "interpretations"  of law,  and then shoving them down our throats against our will.   


You are on the side of the self-appointed religious police.    You are on the side of tyrant judges. 

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

@To-Whose-Benefit?

Well, you’re not busy now, apparently.  You want to address it a little more specifically than plugging your ears, covering your eyes, and ignoring?

I just did address it. It's Circumstantial. NOT PROOF.

[INVAR]

You are on the side of the self-appointed religious police.    You are on the side of tyrant judges.

Yes.  The majority on this board know that.  Jazzy is not fooling anyone here like he thinks he is.

But we appreciate his willingness to be our target practice.

[Silver Pines]

I just did address it. It's Circumstantial. NOT PROOF.

@To-Whose-Benefit?

Then you can’t be taken seriously. 

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

@To-Whose-Benefit?

Then you can’t be taken seriously.

You pile up your Proof that you presented to me and drag it into Court, and see just how fast you and your proof get tossed out on your ear.

[driftdiver]

You pile up your Proof that you presented to me and drag it into Court, and see just how fast you and your proof get tossed out on your ear.

@To-Whose-Benefit?
Its not about proof its about FEEEELLLINGS

[Jazzhead]

The only tyranny of which we have suffered is from Federal Judges exceeding the bounds of their authority in making utterly ridiculous and nonsensical claims as to legislative intent. 

I have read the debates on the 14th amendment.   You will find no mention of homosexuals in them.  You will find no mention of women being allowed to kill their babies in them.   You will find no mention of banning the Christian religion in the states in those debates.   You *WILL*  find a discussion about whether or not "anchor babies"   would be American Citizens,   but in that discussion you will discover the Chief Architect of the law,  (John Bingham)   assures everyone that this will not happen.   


Judges make up false law,  precisely to get around legislative intent that does not speak to the result they want.     The nation has no obligation to respect this fake law,  and indeed a duty to not only oppose it,  but to forcefully punish anyone who would usurp the authority of the legislative branch for their own personal preferences. 








If you believed that,  you would not advocate Judges making up fake "interpretations"  of law,  and then shoving them down our throats against our will.   


You are on the side of the self-appointed religious police.    You are on the side of tyrant judges.

Bullshit.  Neither you nor any judge is a king.   If a judge makes a "kook" decision,  the solution (which has been exercised many times over the years by Congress) is to pass a law to clarify or override that decision.   Sure, judges have expanded the reach of the 14th amendment.  But the mechanism exists under the law to rein in or modify that reach.  The fact that such expansion has been allowed to stand means that our Constitutional system is working as intended - the people are in favor of such expansion.  Even if you turn purple in frustration - sorry, but that's just how things are supposed to work.     

The bottom line is we are a nation of laws, not of men. We are a Constitutional republic and as such the opinions of self-appointed religious foamers count for little.   

[Jazzhead]

@To-Whose-Benefit?
Its not about proof its about FEEEELLLINGS

Correct.  Proof is not a requirement to vote for or against Roy Moore.   The voters are empowered to use their common sense and best judgment, and are morally obligated to take their responsibility seriously.   Beyond that, a decision based on "feelings" is perfectly legitimate.  This may be a matter of he-said, she-said (and she-said and she-said and she-said),  but that is a perfectly legitimate ground upon which to place one's vote.       

[driftdiver]

Correct.  Proof is not a requirement to vote for or against Roy Moore.   The voters are empowered to use their common sense and best judgment, and are morally obligated to take their responsibility seriously.   Beyond that, a decision based on "feelings" is perfectly legitimate.  This may be a matter of he-said, she-said (and she-said and she-said and she-said),  but that is a perfectly legitimate ground upon which to place one's vote.     

@Jazzhead
you talking about morals.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA