The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: mystery-ak on November 15, 2017, 12:50:15 am
-
by Ian Hanchett13 Nov 201715,631
On Monday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “Fox News @ Night,” Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill (R) said that the Alabama Republican Party can formally pull its support for its Senate nominee Judge Roy Moore, and if this happens and Moore still gets the most votes, the election would be null and void.
Merrill said Moore could withdraw from the race, or the state Republican Party could formally pull its support. He further stated that if that happens and Moore receives the most votes, “our election would be declared null and void, and Governor Ivey would have to call another special election, and we’d start the process all over again.”
more
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/11/13/alabama-secretary-of-state-if-state-gop-pulls-support-for-moore-and-he-gets-the-most-votes-election-would-be-null-and-void/
-
Just breaking on Fox the RNC has pulled all support of Moore
-
Just breaking on Fox the RNC has pulled all support of Moore
RNC never supported Moore. This Sec of State is talking about the state party pulling support.
-
Republican National Committee drops Roy Moore amid the Alabama Senate candidate's sexual misconduct scandal
http://www.businessinsider.com/republican-national-committee-withdraws-support-of-roy-moore-sexual-misconduct-2017-11
I thought this was done a few days so whatever.
I've seen that Secretary of State John Merrill on Fox, well, seems like a good guy. All of this will make for some frayed nerves should they do it... and ... I'll say the State GOP will do that... it just seems to be how business is conducted....
-
I had never heard about this loophole.
In other words, if they do this, it essentially becomes an up-or-down vote on Doug Jones. Hmm… the plot thickens. :smokin:
-
I'm so glad that Ronna Romney McDaniel has so quickly recovered from the recent Virginia Gov/House of Delegates disaster and has determined that the value of another GOP Senator to America in this day and age is nada, nil, zilch. I still think it's plausible that this party is imploding right before our eyes and I say good riddance.
-
Wow ... guilty without a trial. This really sickens me.
-
Wow ... guilty without a trial. This really sickens me.
Yep, even worse "guilty" by pre-election slime.
That alone, makes the "charges" specious. Shame any would advance them on the "conservative" side.
-
So now what would the party have to do in order to accomplish this? What do the rules say about their ability to overturn the will of the voters?
-
So now what would the party have to do in order to accomplish this? What do the rules say about their ability to overturn the will of the voters?
The rules are what the Oligarchy say they are at any given moment - and they will change the rules and declare them changed right in front of your face without any legitimate input from any of us.
To wit: the last two Republican Party Conventions.
As I've said - we have arrived at the place where the Corrupt Oligarchy running the country will now simply TELL US who will rule us and how they will rule us.
And you can all pretend you have a voice with your "vote" - when it means jack shit in this day and age.
-
Sumthin' tells me that the Alabama state Republican officials gots 'em more sense than the R.N.C. ...
I could be wrong.
-
I thought this was done a few days so whatever.
That was the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee a few days ago.
-
That was the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee a few days ago.
Thank You!
-
by Ian Hanchett13 Nov 201715,631
Merrill said Moore could withdraw from the race, or the state Republican Party could formally pull its support. He further stated that if that happens and Moore receives the most votes, “our election would be declared null and void, and Governor Ivey would have to call another special election, and we’d start the process all over again.”
@mystery-ak
Whatever the Alabama Secretary of State says, is the way it is in that state.
Moore made a speech tonight at a God Save the County church revival. He started off with quotes from the Bible, talked about that scripture, then spoke briefly about the false attacks on him, then said he didn't want to talk about that but wanted to talk about the country and God (it was something like that), then CNN cut away from it. He is not going to quit.
-
What the Republican party of Alabama REALLY "thinks"...
===========================================
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/alabama-gop-threatens-retaliation-disloyalty-moore-n820876
Alabama GOP Threatens Retaliation for Disloyalty to Moore
by ALEX SEITZ-WALD and PHIL HELSEL
WASHINGTON — Republicans in Washington may be abandoning Roy Moore by the droves. But in Alabama, the GOP has Moore's back and is threatening retribution against defectors.
The chairwoman of the Alabama Republican Party warned she's ready to enforce strict rules on party purity in the state's Senate race, even if it means kicking GOP candidates off the ballot in future elections.
"It would be a serious error for any current elected GOP official or candidate to publicly endorse another party's candidate, an independent, a third party or a write in candidate in a general election as well,” Alabama GOP Chairwoman Terry Lathan told the Alabama Political Reporter. "I have heard of no GOP elected official or candidate that is even considering this option."
-
The chairwoman of the Alabama Republican Party warned she's ready to enforce strict rules on party purity in the state's Senate race, even if it means kicking GOP candidates off the ballot in future elections.
"It would be a serious error for any current elected GOP official or candidate to publicly endorse another party's candidate, an independent, a third party or a write in candidate in a general election as well,” Alabama GOP Chairwoman Terry Lathan told the Alabama Political Reporter. "I have heard of no GOP elected official or candidate that is even considering this option."
What if that means assorted Alabama Republican officeholders and candidates simply dummy up
and refuse to endorse anyone?
-
So now what would the party have to do in order to accomplish this? What do the rules say about their ability to overturn the will of the voters?
In Iowa, the party can't do jack. If you get on the ballot and win, you've won.
Especially for a federal seat. I don't know anywhere that the state party has any say over the winner of a federal election.
-
In Iowa, the party can't do jack. If you get on the ballot and win, you've won.
Especially for a federal seat. I don't know anywhere that the state party has any say over the winner of a federal election.
Technically this is a state election run by the AL Sec of State. The only federal elections are for President and Vice President. Hell, up until 1913, state legislators picked the Senator.
-
This time around it may be Alabama, not South Carolina, that is the "first battle."
If you understand my analogy...
-
The rules are what the Oligarchy say they are at any given moment - and they will change the rules and declare them changed right in front of your face without any legitimate input from any of us.
To wit: the last two Republican Party Conventions.
As I've said - we have arrived at the place where the Corrupt Oligarchy running the country will now simply TELL US who will rule us and how they will rule us.
And you can all pretend you have a voice with your "vote" - when it means jack shit in this day and age.
Brings to mind a quote of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”
-
Alcee Hastings was actually impeached as a judge and serves in the House. Go figure.
-
This is the key to how this will all come down. The Alabama GOP is a private organization, and the ballot lists Moore as its nominee. It can withdraw that nomination, and if Moore wins, the election will be deemed null and void. Moore, whose political reputation is based on resistance and defiance of the law, probably can't persuaded to withdraw, but the local party can yank its support regardless.
The key to avoiding disaster is to have the Alabama GOP withdraw its support quickly, thereby raising pressure on the Governor of Alabama to postpone the special election to allow the Alabama party time to find another nominee (maybe Jeff Sessions himself).
The most likely result is still a Doug Jones victory, although the specter of an invalid nominee on the ballot essentially turns the race into an up or down referendum on Mr. Jones. He wins, he's the Senator; Moore wins, a new election is called.
The Wall Street Journal this morning opined as follows:
In the event Mr. Moore refuses to drop out in the next day or so, President Trump might have more sway if he suggests that he leave the race. If Mr. Trump won't do that, then the GOP will be better off if Mr. Moore loses, despite the blow to its Senate majority. Democrats and the media will make Mr. Moore the running mate of every Republican in 2018.
Alabama's Republican voters are in a tough spot, and ideally they'd at least get the chance to choose between a prominent write-in candidate or opt for sending a message by voting for the Democrat. For 25 years Democrats and feminists euphemized and apologized for Bill Clinton, starting with Gennifer Flowers before he was President. Republicans can show their standards are better.
This is the choice the Alabama GOP (and indeed, Alabama Christians) must make - to make a stand to be better and less cynical than the Democrats on the issue of CHARACTER MATTERS.
-
This is the choice the Alabama GOP (and indeed, Alabama Christians) must make - to make a stand to be better and less cynical than the Democrats on the issue of CHARACTER MATTERS.
The 17th Amendment matters. It was passed because of the corruption in state legislatures. Now that they’ve give the people power for the direct election of senators, they can’t whine about who is chosen.
-
The 17th Amendment matters. It was passed because of the corruption in state legislatures. Now that they’ve give the people power for the direct election of senators, they can’t whine about who is chosen.
It was passed to cut one party (the states) completely out of the process in the fedgov and we have seen the result MANY times since!
-
This time around it may be Alabama, not South Carolina, that is the "first battle."
If you understand my analogy...
I don't think Alabama was ever 80% slave like SC was. They should have been given the right to vote then.
-
It was passed to cut one party (the states) completely out of the process in the fedgov and we have seen the result MANY times since!
We may differ on the reason it exists and perhaps even agree it should not in the first place. Nevertheless, it’s been ratified by the required amount of states, including Alabama in 2002. They don’t get to defy the will of the people and Constitution when it’s politically convenient.
-
Alcee Hastings was actually impeached as a judge and serves in the House. Go figure.
Given that fact, what’s more important, personal character or defeating the left?
Dennis Prager explored this theme brilliantly on his show. For instance, the United States allied itself with the morally compromised Stalin in order to defeat a greater threat, the Nazis. Other examples can be found in one’s personal life, politics in the US and in the macro world, as the left remains focused on tearing down Western civilization globally.
At this point Roy Moore may or may not be morally compromised, but I trust that he understands the threat the left poses to our way of life and will vote appropriately in the senate.
-
I think you may be misunderstanding my point. I was trying to demonstrate the difference between someone convicted vs unproven allegations being disqualifiers.
-
I think you may be misunderstanding my point. I was trying to demonstrate the difference between someone convicted vs unproven allegations being disqualifiers.
I should not have quoted you, as I was introducing a separate point. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
-
This is the choice the Alabama GOP (and indeed, Alabama Christians) must make - to make a stand to be better and less cynical than the Democrats on the issue of CHARACTER MATTERS.
You have zero authority, credibility or standing to make any judgements regarding character or behavior given your repeated insistences that homosexual behavior is moral and righteous even moreso than biblical Christians you have deemed bigots for their refusal to cater to serving said lifestyle in addition to your repeated defenses of abortion and other heinous evils you advocate and desire the government to be empowered to do.
-
You have zero authority, credibility or standing to make any judgements regarding character or behavior given your repeated insistences that homosexual behavior is moral and righteous even moreso than biblical Christians you have deemed bigots for their refusal to cater to serving said lifestyle in addition to your repeated defenses of abortion and other heinous evils you advocate and desire the government to be empowered to do.
I attempted to recite that in one breath. I was seeing spots at 'bigots' and hit the floor at 'cater.'
-
You have zero authority, credibility or standing to make any judgements regarding character or behavior given your repeated insistences that homosexual behavior is moral and righteous even moreso than biblical Christians you have deemed bigots for their refusal to cater to serving said lifestyle in addition to your repeated defenses of abortion and other heinous evils you advocate and desire the government to be empowered to do.
Everyone has on this board has the freedom and intelligence to draw their own conclusions regarding what I post, or to ignore what I post entirely. Your gratuitous bullying reflects your lack of character, not mine.
-
You have zero authority, credibility or standing to make any judgements regarding character or behavior given your repeated insistences that homosexual behavior is moral and righteous even moreso than biblical Christians you have deemed bigots for their refusal to cater to serving said lifestyle in addition to your repeated defenses of abortion and other heinous evils you advocate and desire the government to be empowered to do.
I see he's still bangin' that Alinsky drum today...hold his opponents to an impossible standard so they'll destroy themselves.
-
Everyone has on this board has the freedom and intelligence to draw their own conclusions regarding what I post, or to ignore what I post entirely. Your gratuitous bullying reflects your lack of character, not mine.
Here's mine:
If you disagree with what I believe is ok - you're a bigot.
If I disagree with what you don't believe is a problem - you're a perv.
Heads I win, tails you lose.
-
Everyone has on this board has the freedom and intelligence to draw their own conclusions regarding what I post, or to ignore what I post entirely. Your gratuitous bullying reflects your lack of character, not mine.
I'm simply calling you what you are, and calling you out on the bullshit you post via the lame attempts to disguise what you post as being Conservative, when you have disqualified yourself as anything but a raving liberal hedonist Leftie. Your own positions have consistently put you on the opposite end and side of nearly every single issue Conservatives are concerned about.
And everyone on this board recognizes you for what you are. You are fooling no one.
But we love you for offering yourself to be our daily target practice against the machinations and stupid logic flung by Leftists. In this, you provide a most wonderful service to the board.
-
Conservatives and Christians tend to shy away from profanity and some come off abrasive. As they say, look in the mirror but we are not here to critique each other. Just even doing so, smacks of personal attack. Has continually criticized those who voted for what has become a very pro-life presidency, while attacking that same man, yet, some Judge who probably has some negative evidence, is supported in the Republican party they often denigrate.
-
I'm simply calling you what you are, and calling you out on the bullshit you post via the lame attempts to disguise what you post as being Conservative, when you have disqualified yourself as anything but a raving liberal hedonist Leftie. Your own positions have consistently put you on the opposite end and side of nearly every single issue Conservatives are concerned about.
And everyone on this board recognizes you for what you are. You are fooling no one.
But we love you for offering yourself to be our daily target practice against the machinations and stupid logic flung by Leftists. In this, you provide a most wonderful service to the board.
You do realize, of course, that what you're really doing is exposing the ugliness of the "Bible believing Christian"? Now the many Christians I know are loving and generous and empathic towards their neighbors, and would reject utterly your hateful campaign against "perverts" who live their lives as monogamously and as close to God as I presume you seek to do. But you do claim the Bible as the fig-leaf for your bigotry, and that reflects poorly on the faith you claim to speak for.
-
You do realize, of course, that what you're really doing is exposing the ugliness of the "Bible believing Christian"? Now the many Christians I know are loving and generous and empathic towards their neighbors, and would reject utterly your hateful campaign against "perverts" who live their lives as monogamously and as close to God as I presume you seek to do. But you do claim the Bible as the fig-leaf for your bigotry, and that reflects poorly on the faith you claim to speak for.
Being preached to by you about how you think I appear to men, is like having Satan himself tell me that I shall surely not die, but will become as God, knowing good and evil if only I listen to your admonition about how my faith is perceived by the likes of you.
In matters pertaining to God, you preach a doctrine of death which is not surprising coming from an open advocate of government tyranny. Both mindsets come from the prince and power of the air of whom you are a willing pawn.
-
Being preached to by you about how you think I appear to men, is like having Satan himself tell me that I shall surely not die, but will become as God, knowing good and evil if only I listen to your admonition about how my faith is perceived by the likes of you.
In matters pertaining to God, you preach a doctrine of death which is not surprising coming from an open advocate of government tyranny. Both mindsets come from the prince and power of the air of whom you are a willing pawn.
And in matters pertaining to God, you preach a doctrine of intolerance and bigotry. Keep it up - if you seek to alienate good people from finding out the good news.
-
And in matters pertaining to God, you preach a doctrine of intolerance and bigotry. Keep it up - if you seek to alienate good people from finding out the good news.
Intolerance and bigotry towards sin that leads to eternal death? YOU BETCHA! If that "alienates" people from wanting to follow God - and hating those who preach against sin, Jesus said exactly what His Word would cause:
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household." - Matthew 10:34-35
You on the other hand are busy preaching the doctrines of Satan calling good evil, and evil, good. Jesus Himself spoke of those doing what you do:
"So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 5:19
The words are His Whom you pay lip service to being a follower of, while teaching men to not only break the Commandments, but to call His Word a lie and His Commandments unjust.
Just how many have you been an instrument towards bringing to repentance and baptized? I'll put what God has used me to perform in service against what you advocate any day of the week.
-
Just how many have you been an instrument towards bringing to repentance and baptized? I'll put what God has used me to perform in service against what you advocate any day of the week.
All right—stop it right there.
Whatever stance you take on this, do not start lecturing people with the "I've baptized more people than you" card. This is not a contest, and God does not keep score. It is by grace, and grace alone, that you are saved.
-
All right—stop it right there.
Whatever stance you take on this, do not start lecturing people with the "I've baptized more people than you" card. This is not a contest, and God does not keep score. It is by grace, and grace alone, that you are saved.
Excuse you, but I was charged with "alienating good people from finding out the good news".
I want to know how many he has led to repentance and baptism verses how many he asserts I have "alienated" from finding out the good news.
-
“So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 5:19
Well, that’s great. The snobby people in my HOA are bad enough. Now, I’ll have to listen while Peter brags thrice before the cock crows how he saw the potential early and bought the biggest corner lot.
-
God does not keep score.
Oh, but he does.
-
I see he's still bangin' that Alinsky drum today...hold his opponents to an impossible standard so they'll destroy themselves.
And.... it's working (apparently). Anyone who cannot clearly see the ulterior motivation behind this "get Moore out" campaign is too stupid to be alive.
-
And.... it's working (apparently). Anyone who cannot clearly see the ulterior motivation behind this "get Moore out" campaign is too stupid to be alive.
I've never hidden my disregard for Roy Moore. I've never asked anyone to share my disregard, only to recognize that character does, indeed, matter and that the inevitable result, if Moore doesn't step down or the local party fails to rescind his nomination, will be one more Democrat in the Senate. The latest poll (see thread elsewhere) shows Moore down 12 points - proof of what I'm saying (and proof as well that Alabama Republicans are as repulsed by this creep as so many other good and decent conservatives are).
-
Alabama's AG clearly has no knowledge of the 17th Amendment.
-
@mystery-ak
Whatever the Alabama Secretary of State says, is the way it is in that state.
Moore made a speech tonight at a God Save the County church revival. He started off with quotes from the Bible, talked about that scripture, then spoke briefly about the false attacks on him, then said he didn't want to talk about that but wanted to talk about the country and God (it was something like that), then CNN cut away from it. He is not going to quit.
Did he point out which Commandment proscribes fondling a 14 year old...in Jesus' name?
Moore's Jimmy Swaggart moment is coming.
-
And.... it's working (apparently). Anyone who cannot clearly see the ulterior motivation behind this "get Moore out" campaign is too stupid to be alive.
When they succeed with this, the Oligarchy will be self-aware of the fact it can choose our rulers for us with impunity.
Idiots and imbeciles will applaud this as a great and good thing.
-
Alabama's AG clearly has no knowledge of the 17th Amendment.
Moore is not running on his own account for Senate. He is running as the nominee of the Republican Party. If the Alabama GOP rescinds its nomination, which it has the right to do, then the AG is correct that a Moore victory would be null and void.
-
Moore is not running on his own account for Senate. He is running as the nominee of the Republican Party. If the Alabama GOP rescinds its nomination, which it has the right to do, then the AG is correct that a Moore victory would be null and void.
@Jazzhead
Thats dictated by state law and since he's already on the ballot its probably too late for the GOP to do that. The State AG probably can't do what he's talking about either. Moore would have to be convicted of a crime first.
you don't just to declare an election null and void. That only happens in bananna republics and your friends haven't quite got us there yet
-
The Democrat is now ahead by 9 points. Many women aren't going to vote for Moore now.
-
@Jazzhead
Thats dictated by state law and since he's already on the ballot its probably too late for the GOP to do that. The State AG probably can't do what he's talking about either. Moore would have to be convicted of a crime first.
you don't just to declare an election null and void. That only happens in bananna republics and your friends haven't quite got us there yet
DD, I'm, of course, no expert on Alabama law, but the Secretary of State of Alabama (not the AG as I said above) is of the view that Moore cannot validly win the election unless he is the nominee of the Republican Part as stated on the ballot . So if the Alabama GOP rescinds the nomination, and Moore still wins, it's null and void.
-
The Democrat is now ahead by 9 points. Many women aren't going to vote for Moore now.
Maybe even 12...I had not thought of the women factor. Astute observation. I guess, they may find those women believable.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/15/roy-moore-doug-jones-poll-244937
-
The Democrat is now ahead by 9 points. Many women aren't going to vote for Moore now.
Many want to, but they haven't reached voting age.
-
The Democrat is now ahead by 9 points. Many women aren't going to vote for Moore now.
Baloney.
National Senate is a McConnell run group.
RCP avg has him up 3 and that is affected by the day of the accusations when the Dem was +4 in some poll. Since then, two actual polls put Moore +6 and +10, with the trend upward.
-
DD, I'm, of course, no expert on Alabama law, but the Secretary of State of Alabama (not the AG as I said above) is of the view that Moore cannot validly win the election unless he is the nominee of the Republican Part as stated on the ballot . So if the Alabama GOP rescinds the nomination, and Moore still wins, it's null and void.
The Secretary of State of Alabama seems unaware of the 17th Amendment.
-
The Democrat is now ahead by 9 points. Many women aren't going to vote for Moore now.
There is only one poll that matters, and we'll see what AL people decide.
-
This is the key to how this will all come down. The Alabama GOP is a private organization, and the ballot lists Moore as its nominee. It can withdraw that nomination, and if Moore wins, the election will be deemed null and void. Moore, whose political reputation is based on resistance and defiance of the law, probably can't persuaded to withdraw, but the local party can yank its support regardless.
The key to avoiding disaster is to have the Alabama GOP withdraw its support quickly, thereby raising pressure on the Governor of Alabama to postpone the special election to allow the Alabama party time to find another nominee (maybe Jeff Sessions himself).
The most likely result is still a Doug Jones victory, although the specter of an invalid nominee on the ballot essentially turns the race into an up or down referendum on Mr. Jones. He wins, he's the Senator; Moore wins, a new election is called.
The Wall Street Journal this morning opined as follows:
This is the choice the Alabama GOP (and indeed, Alabama Christians) must make - to make a stand to be better and less cynical than the Democrats on the issue of CHARACTER MATTERS.
We know why you don't like him and are so anxious to get him out of the race.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/us/top-alabama-judge-orders-halt-to-same-sex-marriage-licenses.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/us/top-alabama-judge-orders-halt-to-same-sex-marriage-licenses.html)
-
Many want to, but they haven't reached voting age.
Just postpone another 6 months, and then they can.
-
Moore is not running on his own account for Senate. He is running as the nominee of the Republican Party. If the Alabama GOP rescinds its nomination, which it has the right to do, then the AG is correct that a Moore victory would be null and void.
He is running as the elected candidate for the Republican Party, not some committee nominee.
-
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
-
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
They threw that out the train window during the last presidential primary. Witch hunts are all the rage.
-
They threw that out the train window during the last presidential primary. Witch hunts are all the rage.
All it takes now is "a woman said" and you're done it seems!
-
All it takes now is "a woman said" and you're done it seems!
All it takes is a man with a weaker denial than Clarence Thomas, or even Bill Clinton.
-
All it takes now is "a woman said" and you're done it seems!
Unless you are a Democrat.
Then the GOP will send it's leadership to appear in court to testify on your behalf about what a great and honorable and upstanding guy you are, despite actual criminal evidence that is ignored.
But if you are an actual Conservative with a record to prove it - why - then ANY allegation from ANYONE, without ANY PROOF is an automatic "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!"
Liberals and Leftists from either party get a free pass however, unless one of them is in the way of an actual Democrat then by default they are guilty automatically.
-
The Democrat is now ahead by 9 points. Many women aren't going to vote for Moore now.
That poll is according to the NSRC -- I'm not holding much stock in it. Do I think that this will affect the outcome of the vote...of course. IMHO this is a witch hunt orchestrated by McConnell and cronies and they are scared to death of Moore and had to stop him with whatever means necessary. McConnell would rather hand the AL seat to a DEM rather than see Moore enter his country club.
-
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
It still exists---in a court of law.
And there isn't a court in this country that can abrogate your right or my right to make a call
on guilt or innocence based on the information available.
You can determine a man's guilt or innocence based on information made available to you
before an accusation finds its way into a courtroom (in the Moore case it would have to be
civil litigation, considering the criminal statute of limitations), you simply can't punish him
under the law. About the only way anyone could punish Mr. Moore if they believe him guilty
as accused would be for Alabama voters to deny him election to the Senate. But the
available information still allows you to decide whether, in Mr. Moore's case, it's innocent,
guilty, or Lucy-you-got-some-more-splainin'-to-do.
Remember: We didn't need a court to determine Droopy Drawers Clinton guilty of serial
adultery or committing perjury, suborning perjury, and obstruction justice on behalf of
trying to cover up a little presidential nooky in the White House; we had enough information
available even before the impeachment trial to know he was guilty.
We didn't need a court to determine Hilarious Rodent Clinton's guilt regarding her e-mail
servers, Benghazi, and turning the Democratic National Committee into her personal
rubber stamp. (That may not be illegal but it was damn sure unethical at minimum.) We
have enough information on all the above to know she was guilty.
We didn't even need a court to tell us O.J. Simpson was guilty of murder. We had enough
information to know he was guilty even before the prosecution completely screwed up
the criminal trial. Which reminds me, too, that the legal presumption of innocence may
still exist in a court of law, but courts have been known to screw the proverbial
pooch. Both ways. The innocent have been convicted often enough; the guilty have been
acquitted often enough.
-
I will continue to withhold judgment until he announces who his Prom Date is gonna be this Spring at a Press Conference.
-
Unless you are a Democrat.
Then the GOP will send it's leadership to appear in court to testify on your behalf about what a great and honorable and upstanding guy you are, despite actual criminal evidence that is ignored.
But if you are an actual Conservative with a record to prove it - why - then ANY allegation from ANYONE, without ANY PROOF is an automatic "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!"
Liberals and Leftists from either party get a free pass however, unless one of them is in the way of an actual Democrat then by default they are guilty automatically.
Unfortunately that is all true! And it makes me want to throw up!
-
Moore is not running on his own account for Senate. He is running as the nominee of the Republican Party. If the Alabama GOP rescinds its nomination, which it has the right to do, then the AG is correct that a Moore victory would be null and void.
So, if the Alabama GOP rescinds... then I propose a write-in for Moore. If such is good for GOPE-Sessions.
Then I say "More Moore...Here Here" as the write in slogan. Let the GOPE, and your kind, deny the Will of The People..if you dare.
-
Moore is not running on his own account for Senate. He is running as the nominee of the Republican Party. If the Alabama GOP rescinds its nomination, which it has the right to do, then the AG is correct that a Moore victory would be null and void.
Sounds like you’re trying to give legal opines to the AG of Alabama. :shrug: I seriously doubt the state GOP would rescind their only candidate. Moore is a party candidate, but also is running on his own filing. I don’t know how the Sec of State could void the election. Someone would have to show the state law authority for that.
-
Unfortunately that is all true! And it makes me want to throw up!
Ditto. I'm besides myself ... Lee, whom I always thought was a staunch conservative was one of the first to withdraw his support for Moore ... and then Cruz; both asserting in essence that he's guilty. I don't know what to think. I'm hoping that they know something we don't; otherwise it sure seems that both of them have climbed aboard the swamp train.
-
I will continue to withhold judgment until he announces who his Prom Date is gonna be this Spring at a Press Conference.
I’m withholding judgment until an accuser comes forward with the claim he wore football attire and insisted upon being called ‘Mr. Greenfield’ during encounters.
-
Ditto. I'm besides myself ... Lee, whom I always thought was a staunch conservative was one of the first to withdraw his support for Moore ... and then Cruz; both asserting in essence that he's guilty. I don't know what to think. I'm hoping that they know something we don't; otherwise it sure seems that both of them have climbed aboard the swamp train.
Seems they want Sessions back in his Senate seat. I propose a swap..... Sessions as Senator... Moore as AG.
-
Unfortunately that is all true! And it makes me want to throw up!
"So Whhhhat? Putin Gate deedn't get you, yet, so we get you, on smaller scale of course - gives us time and experience perfecting the method - with Moore Gate. Mua-hah-haha."
(http://sobrosnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/nogoodnik-300x210.png)
The Dem/RINO reaction to Trump beating Hillary, from the start, has become a bad Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon.
-
(https://s7.postimg.org/vnl2r6am3/Roy_Moore_Year_Book.jpg)
In 1977 Roy Moore was NOT the DA.
https://thepolitistick.com/roy-moore-attorney-demands-gloria-allred-release-original-yearbook-contends-fraud/
-
In 1977 Roy Moore was NOT the DA.
Hey @Sighlass , you're down in Alabama, aren't you?
How's it feel on the ground? Are people buying this stuff?
-
Hey @Sighlass , you're down in Alabama, aren't you?
How's it feel on the ground? Are people buying this stuff?
Lets just say that I wouldn't believe polls put out by politico and touted by certain members here. Thanks for the ping, was beginning to think all my posts were being ignored... like I had made everyone's block list. @roamer_1
-
Lets just say that I wouldn't believe polls put out by politico and touted by certain members here. Thanks for the ping, was beginning to think all my posts were being ignored... like I had made everyone's block list. @roamer_1
@Sighlass
I sure thought as much... RCP avg has him up 3, and that's with one significant poll from the day of the breaking news that had the dem up 4... since that one, a Moore +6 and a Moore +10, trending up.
I didn't figger y'all would fall for the city slicker bullcrap...
And sorry to make you feel disappeared... I always read ya. :shrug:
:beer:
-
Seems they want Sessions back in his Senate seat. I propose a swap..... Sessions as Senator... Moore as AG.
Sessions back into the Senate is no longer a possibility; the filing deadline has already passed, but Sessions could perhaps run as a write in candidate, but I highly doubt that he will. We're stuck with him as the AG unless Trump decides to do the right thing and fire him!
-
Sessions back into the Senate is no longer a possibility; the filing deadline has already passed, but Sessions could perhaps run as a write in candidate, but I highly doubt that he will. We're stuck with him as the AG unless Trump decides to do the right thing and fire him!
Was speakin' 'Bout write in's. However, dems have been known to sub someone in after deadlines. Not that I am for this. I am all Roy'd rage 'Bout even considering these "allegations" at the last minute as true.
So pissed am I, that I may well not vote in 2018 if Roy is forced out.
-
(https://s7.postimg.org/vnl2r6am3/Roy_Moore_Year_Book.jpg)
In 1977 Roy Moore was NOT the DA.
https://thepolitistick.com/roy-moore-attorney-demands-gloria-allred-release-original-yearbook-contends-fraud/
That is even worse than the phony Obama birth certificate!
-
Was speakin' 'Bout write in's. However, dems have been known to sub someone in after deadlines. Not that I am for this. I am all Roy'd rage 'Bout even considering these "allegations" at the last minute as true.
So pissed am I, that I may well not vote in 2018 if Roy is forced out.
I hear you....if our votes can be pushed aside and considered null and void, then why vote?
-
(https://s7.postimg.org/vnl2r6am3/Roy_Moore_Year_Book.jpg)
In 1977 Roy Moore was NOT the DA.
https://thepolitistick.com/roy-moore-attorney-demands-gloria-allred-release-original-yearbook-contends-fraud/
He actually served as deputy district attorney in Etowah County, Alabama, from 1977-1982; he was,
in fact, the first full-time such deputy in that county. I'm pretty sure he's not the first ADA/DDA to
sign his name with plain old "DA" after his signature.
-
All it takes is a man with a weaker denial than Clarence Thomas, or even Bill Clinton.
In Clinton's case, practice makes perfect. He is an accomplished liar.
HIs parsing of phrase and meaning when he made the famous statement "I did not have sex with that woman." while pointing directly at Helen Thomas, (who was likely on the short list), making a brief pause and scan of the people assembled before smirking and saying "Monica Lewinsky." as a non sequitur permitted him the gravitas and calm of not lying, but appearing to say something he really didn't. Textbook, and worthy of study.
I think with the media barrage on Thomas, he had more time to consider his answers and the questions he was asked, especially by Media personalities who were sympathetic and less hostile on more conservative shows. They did not want to feed him to Anita Hill and the Dems, especially with the sting of Robert Bork not so far back.
OTOH, Hannity (on the heels of so many Hollywood sex scandal/revelations) seemed adversarial, and may even have been hostile, and a former DA like Moore would pick up on the intent to catch him in a rhetorical trap early on. For that reason he would have to mull over the question, consider how an answer could be used to trap him later on in a misinterpretation by someone who was hostile, and construct answers which would be honest, yet not vulnerable to being twisted. You don't just go tap dancing in a rhetorical minefield. You just aren't going to come off as slick as a telemarketer under those circumstances.
-
He actually served as deputy district attorney in Etowah County, Alabama, from 1977-1982; he was,
in fact, the first full-time such deputy in that county. I'm pretty sure he's not the first ADA/DDA to
sign his name with plain old "DA" after his signature.
See here wrt the whole DA thing:
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,291215.msg1516058.html#msg1516058
-
He actually served as deputy district attorney in Etowah County, Alabama, from 1977-1982; he was,
in fact, the first full-time such deputy in that county. I'm pretty sure he's not the first ADA/DDA to
sign his name with plain old "DA" after his signature.
Why are the sevens different? Why was the restaurant name printed in all caps and not cursive? (too many common letters for comparison with the part of the text which was in darker blue ink?)
I'll wait for expert analysis, but my bet is that is a kluge, part forgery at least. She called him "Ray" until Allred corrected her. Was there a "Ray" or another "Roy" who signed her yearbook and the Moore, date, DA, and restaurant name added later to flesh out an altered signature that would look good enough for most in black and white? This is being offered as supporting evidence. If it is falsified, her story is absolutely not credible.
-
OTOH, Hannity (on the heels of so many Hollywood sex scandal/revelations) seemed adversarial, and may even have been hostile, and a former DA like Moore would pick up on the intent to catch him in a rhetorical trap early on.
@Smokin Joe
This is worth a little more comment. Getting 'Hannitized' in a political sense is something Hannity is known for... A Republican pol in trouble comes in and sits down, and gets a nice 'touchy-feely' place to speak his mind, with lobbed softball questions leading the outcome... It has happened so often as to have a name coined.
That's what I think Moore thought he was walking into, and I don't think that's what Hannity was doing at all - He started out pretty soft, but started becoming very adversarial. I think Moore wasn't expecting that, and was not led to expect that (thinking softball), and was operating under what became a 'friendly' sandbagging.
-
@Smokin Joe
This is worth a little more comment. Getting 'Hannitized' in a political sense is something Hannity is known for... A Republican pol in trouble comes in and sits down, and gets a nice 'touchy-feely' place to speak his mind, with lobbed softball questions leading the outcome... It has happened so often as to have a name coined.
That's what I think Moore thought he was walking into, and I don't think that's what Hannity was doing at all - He started out pretty soft, but started becoming very adversarial. I think Moore wasn't expecting that, and was not led to expect that (thinking softball), and was operating under what became a 'friendly' sandbagging.
Hannity can be as rude and nasty as needed, whenever his Masters tell him to heel. He's in on this one, it's obvious.
-
@Smokin Joe
This is worth a little more comment. Getting 'Hannitized' in a political sense is something Hannity is known for... A Republican pol in trouble comes in and sits down, and gets a nice 'touchy-feely' place to speak his mind, with lobbed softball questions leading the outcome... It has happened so often as to have a name coined.
That's what I think Moore thought he was walking into, and I don't think that's what Hannity was doing at all - He started out pretty soft, but started becoming very adversarial. I think Moore wasn't expecting that, and was not led to expect that (thinking softball), and was operating under what became a 'friendly' sandbagging.
My whole take on the interview was that Hannity was trying to trick him into some sort of contradiction. Moore, now conscious of the difference in which the way southern courting rituals of 4 decades ago would be perceived in the modern press was being careful not to feed the lions. Despite categorically denying any immoral behaviour, Hannity still came across with the whole attitude that he did not deny the allegations of wrongdoing. :shrug:
-
Hannity can be as rude and nasty as needed, whenever his Masters tell him to heel. He's in on this one, it's obvious.
My take, too.
-
Hannity can be as rude and nasty as needed, whenever his Masters tell him to heel. He's in on this one, it's obvious.
Hannity will do as he is told or find himself Bill O'reillied!
-
Hannity can be as rude and nasty as needed, whenever his Masters tell him to heel. He's in on this one, it's obvious.
I think that's right. And a don't think that's what he sold to Moore. He looks off, rattled.
-
My whole take on the interview was that Hannity was trying to trick him into some sort of contradiction. Moore, now conscious of the difference in which the way southern courting rituals of 4 decades ago would be perceived in the modern press was being careful not to feed the lions. Despite categorically denying any immoral behaviour, Hannity still came across with the whole attitude that he did not deny the allegations of wrongdoing. :shrug:
Yeah. That's pretty tight thinking.
And as the hue and cry around here proves, even in the face of folks explaining those courting differences, shows Moore right to tread softly. But I still don't thing he was expecting what he got.
-
Yeah. That's pretty tight thinking.
And as the hue and cry around here proves, even in the face of folks explaining those courting differences, shows Moore right to tread softly. But I still don't thing he was expecting what he got.
More than one innocent man has been shocked into ineffectiveness at being slammed with baseless allegations of wrongdoing, and it is not the last time someone will take that as a sign he wasn't being truthful, was being evasive, or was guilty.
In view of all this, Pence is one of the wisest politicians of the age, in that he doesn't go places without the Mrs. along. I'm sure the creative minds at the tabloids could cipher out a way to twist that if their marching orders were such, but credibility might not be there. As for media climate, on the tail of all the Hollywood allegations (possibly well timed, and very likely deserved in view of the people making those allegations--guilt to be determined by a court, if it gets that far) this would be swept up as just another breaking scandal, with the crowd already warmed up and ready for blood sport in any arena.
Once the mob is at a fever pitch, they'll hang a little old woman for picking up draft horses and carrying them off on her back without stopping to think about the facts, provided enough people shout the accusations and someone leads the torchlight parade.
-
He actually served as deputy district attorney in Etowah County, Alabama, from 1977-1982; he was,
in fact, the first full-time such deputy in that county. I'm pretty sure he's not the first ADA/DDA to
sign his name with plain old "DA" after his signature.
Like I said he was NOT the DA at that time.
Also the signature were in two different colors.... when I first saw it... I thought someone had faked it, but CNN put the picture up (on twitter and I screen shot it).
(https://s7.postimg.org/srbtvolnv/CNN_Roy_Moore_Yearbook_two_different_colors.jpg)
-
Like I said he was NOT the DA at that time.
Also the signature were in two different colors.... when I first saw it... I thought someone had faked it, but CNN put the picture up (on twitter and I screen shot it).
(https://s7.postimg.org/srbtvolnv/CNN_Roy_Moore_Yearbook_two_different_colors.jpg)
I'd like to know what an actual handwriting expert would say about that yearbook myself. Assuming such an expert
finds it fake or at least questionable, that might impact the credibility of one accuser, but there are others, alas.
-
I'd like to know what an actual handwriting expert would say about that yearbook myself. Assuming such an expert
finds it fake or at least questionable, that might impact the credibility of one accuser, but there are others, alas.
I have $20 that says there will never be such expert examination of this evidence. And, as you say, it doesn't matter because "there are others." I wonder how many are lined up for today?
-
Thanks for the ping, was beginning to think all my posts were being ignored... like I had made everyone's block list. @roamer_1
@Sighlass
Dangit, girl. You are the boots on the ground. We are expecting updates from you every hour on the hour. We need details! 8 x 10 glossy photos with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one. Can you drive by the restaurant and take some photos of the parking lot so that we can get a feel for how this girl was allegedly assaulted?
-
Hannity can be as rude and nasty as needed, whenever his Masters tell him to heel. He's in on this one, it's obvious.
(https://moviewriternyu.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/mob-torches.jpg)
-
I have $20 that says there will never be such expert examination of this evidence. And, as you say, it doesn't matter because "there are others." I wonder how many are lined up for today?
I wouldn't touch that bet with someone else's $20!
-
I wouldn't touch that bet with someone else's $20!
I gotta wonder how this must taste to Mark Levine what with all his Hannity connection.
-
I gotta wonder how this must taste to Mark Levine what with all his Hannity connection.
I'm sure he's aware of the pressure being applied to Hannity by his new bosses over at Fox!
-
My whole take on the interview was that Hannity was trying to trick him into some sort of contradiction. Moore, now conscious of the difference in which the way southern courting rituals of 4 decades ago would be perceived in the modern press was being careful not to feed the lions. Despite categorically denying any immoral behaviour, Hannity still came across with the whole attitude that he did not deny the allegations of wrongdoing. :shrug:
Hannity is as Yankee as they come, the only difference is that he is more conservative then the rest of ‘em. But he can be sleezy too. I think he is joining the Lynch mob train is because of all the others. He doesn’t want to looked at as hanging out on the fringe.
-
I'm sure he's aware of the pressure being applied to Hannity by his new bosses over at Fox!
Wait till Disney gets ownership of Fox.
-
Hannity is as Yankee as they come, the only difference is that he is more conservative then the rest of ‘em. But he can be sleezy too. I think he is joining the Lynch mob train is because of all the others. He doesn’t want to looked at as hanging out on the fringe.
Ingraham last night was flat calling Moore a sexual predator, as if the charges were determined facts sworn to under oath, as well.
-
Ingraham last night was flat calling Moore a sexual predator, as if the charges were determined facts sworn to under oath, as well.
Well! They gotta follow orders if they want to keep their phony baloney jobs!
-
Ingraham last night was flat calling Moore a sexual predator, as if the charges were determined facts sworn to under oath, as well.
I am very disappointed with her. She is losing a lot of respect from me
by joining in the smearing of a good man.
-
The Democrat is now ahead by 9 points. Many women aren't going to vote for Moore now.
Wait, are you referring to the poll last year on Hillary vs Donald?
How did that one turn out?
-
Sessions back into the Senate is no longer a possibility; the filing deadline has already passed, but Sessions could perhaps run as a write in candidate, but I highly doubt that he will. We're stuck with him as the AG unless Trump decides to do the right thing and fire him!
What rubbish is that? Are you old enough to remember when Lautenberg was allowed to fill in for Torricelli at the last moment?
NEW JERSEY COURT LETS LAUTENBERG INTO SENATE RACE
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/03/nyregion/new-jersey-senate-race-overview-new-jersey-court-lets-lautenberg-into-senate.html
-
I’m surprised this political mafia hit on Moore hasn’t gotten the BLM and Antifa radicals marching the streets of Birmingham in protest of his candidacy. Or maybe that’s next.
-
What rubbish is that? Are you old enough to remember when Lautenberg was allowed to fill in for Torricelli at the last moment?
The difference here is that liberals have no qualms whatsoever in using the courts to rewrite the law while Conservatives abhor such acts of tyranny.
-
Ingraham last night was flat calling Moore a sexual predator, as if the charges were determined facts sworn to under oath, as well.
Ingraham‘s focused on moral character. But there are more pressing concerns in this election fight.
Jimmy Carter was by all accounts a moral man. Yet, if viewed on the macro issue of defending Western culture, he was unacceptable as president and is unacceptable as a private citizen, and is destructive of Israel and Western values. Winston Churchill’s moral character was viewed by some of his contemporaries as lacking, but that’s not what mattered in defending against Nazism.
Personal morality is a good thing but unimportant in the fight to stop the left from tearing down Western culture by turning it into white supremacy, misogyny and all the rest.
We need Roy Moore to win. He understands the fight.
I hope the people of Alabama understand it as well.
-
Jimmy Carter was by all accounts a moral man.
I don't consider anyone running on the same ticket with Lester Maddox to be 'moral'.
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/a3/41/4a/a3414a4ac80e88e9d71f3364d0a86909--gun-rights-black-man.jpg)
-
Ingraham‘s focused on moral character. But there are more pressing concerns in this election fight.
Jimmy Carter was by all accounts a moral man. Yet, if viewed on the macro issue of defending Western culture, he was unacceptable as president and is unacceptable as a private citizen, and is destructive of Israel and Western values. Winston Churchill’s moral character was viewed by some of his contemporaries as lacking, but that’s not what mattered in defending against Nazism.
Personal morality is a good thing but unimportant in the fight to stop the left from tearing down Western culture by turning it into white supremacy, misogyny and all the rest.
We need Roy Moore to win. He understands the fight.
I hope the people of Alabama understand it as well.
And at this point, whether or not Moore wins and is seated, the Left has clobbered and beaten us but good with this charade.
Moore looked uncomfortable being asked to Deny allegations made by others?
That is Exactly the position the Dems have bulldozed us onto as a Party, as a Movement, as Conservatives.
Our Positions are what we'll be forced to defend from now on, not because they're right or wrong, but because the Rats framed this as a No Win.
If we supported Moore we were phonies because They said he was a Perv.
If we denounced Moore They Win because we LET them do it to us, Again, with Nothing More than Dem Hot Air and Allegations we dumped Moore because They said we had to.
And YET, and STILL, and FOREVER More, we will remain, The Party of Stupid, because we keep playing bridge while They keep playing Cage Fight #29.
How many people Right Here are STILL willing to tear Moore apart, because God commands them not to suffer a Pervert?
I love being a Republican, just love it.
We're the gang that not only voluntarily picks up the gun when the other side tells us to play Russian Roulette as they sit back and watch, we're the idiots who make sure that all 6 chambers are loaded.
"War is the continuation of politics by other means."
Von Clauswitz
"All warfare is based upon deception."
Sun Tzu.
-
I don't consider anyone running on the same ticket with Lester Maddox to be 'moral'.
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/a3/41/4a/a3414a4ac80e88e9d71f3364d0a86909--gun-rights-black-man.jpg)
If this Moore Assassination should leave us with just one question, it should be What the hell makes us think bringing a Bible to a gunfight is a good idea?
-
Roy Moore is hardly the hill to make any last stand on. He's unfit for the office he seeks, his bigotry makes me cringe, his willingness to ignore the law is appalling, and he's certainly no loyal Republican, just another self-styled rabble-rouser using our Party as his vehicle for advancement.
It is shameful to see conservatives using the Clinton playbook to defend this man. Clinton harassed, cheated and even raped, and the Dems defended him because their partisan priorities excused the degradations heaped on a few trailer-trash women. Shouldn't we aspire to be better, less blatantly hypocritical, than that?
And if appealing to our better angels doesn't cut it, then consider this: If Moore is elected, he'll tar each and every one of us - and ESPECIALLY Christian conservatives. We'll be slimeballs no better than the Dems, willing to excuse bad and tawdry behavior because he's our creep and not theirs.
-
Ingraham‘s focused on moral character. But there are more pressing concerns in this election fight.
Its fine to be focused on moral character.
But those who are so focused should be moral enough themselves to wait until a charge is proven before condemning a person with a charge as serious as this.
I can be convinced that Moore is a 'sexual pervert' if someone can offer solid proof that he's deserving of the charge. He may have dated teenagers as a thirty year old bachelor some thirty or forty years ago. What else ya got?
Maybe I've missed something but at this point it all seems like politically convenient hearsay, some from sources with questionable credibility, to me.
-
He's unfit for the office he seeks, his bigotry makes me cringe
What bigotry? Do you have any examples?
his willingness to ignore the law is appalling
Again, do you have any examples?
Not defending Moore here, but if he is really the bad guy you believe him to be, then you should be able to come up with truthful examples.
-
Roy Moore is hardly the hill to make any last stand on. He's unfit for the office he seeks, his bigotry makes me cringe, his willingness to ignore the law is appalling, and he's certainly no loyal Republican, just another self-styled rabble-rouser using our Party as his vehicle for advancement.
It is shameful to see conservatives using the Clinton playbook to defend this man. Clinton harassed, cheated and even raped, and the Dems defended him because their partisan priorities excused the degradations heaped on a few trailer-trash women. Shouldn't we aspire to be better, less blatantly hypocritical, than that?
And if appealing to our better angels doesn't cut it, then consider this: If Moore is elected, he'll tar each and every one of us - and ESPECIALLY Christian conservatives. We'll be slimeballs no better than the Dems, willing to excuse bad and tawdry behavior because he's our creep and not theirs.
WOW... All that huh? And all you need is proof. Then all your crap means something. Right now the question is WHETHER the allegations are true. Conservatives don;t convict a man on hearsay.
-
What bigotry? Do you have any examples?
Again, do you have any examples?
Not defending Moore here, but if he is really the bad guy you believe him to be, then you should be able to come up with truthful examples.
As a judge, he was reprimanded/removed twice for failing to follow the law. That to me, makes him unfit for office. As for his bigotry, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. To me, it's as clear as the nose on his face. But you'll chalk it up to his religion.
-
WOW... All that huh? And all you need is proof. Then all your crap means something. Right now the question is WHETHER the allegations are true. Conservatives don;t convict a man on hearsay.
No one's seeking a "conviction". I just don't want his sorry bigoted hypocritical ass in the Senate. I've been honest from the git-go regarding my motivations. As to your demand for "proof", there is none of the sort that will sway you. It's he said, she said - and most dispassionate observers have concluded that Moore's accusers are credible.
You no doubt clucked in glee at the accusations leveled at Bill Clinton, and you've turn a blind eye to the accusations leveled at Roy Moore. Your demand for "proof" is cynical - Moore's your boy, your redneck, salt-of-the earth religious fanatic. You'll defend him because you view him as a martyr for your cause - just as the Dems defended Clinton to the tune of two terms in the White House.
-
No one's seeking a "conviction". I just don't want his sorry bigoted hypocritical ass in the Senate.
Thats for the voters of Alabama to decide, thankfully.
-
Thats for the voters of Alabama to decide, thankfully.
I know - and unless Moore steps down, they'll decide to elect Doug Jones.
-
Roy Moore is hardly the hill to make any last stand on.
For the cuckservatives, there is no hill on which they are willing to make a last stand. There is an infinite variety of retreats in their quiver, and that is all.
They once again counsel "retreat."
-
I know - and unless Moore steps down, they'll decide to elect Doug Jones.
A win win for you.
So why all the b*tching?
-
As a judge, he was reprimanded/removed twice for failing to follow the law.
No, he refused to follow the made up bullsh*t that Liberal Kook judges proclaimed to be the law. The law itself goes the opposite of what they said it did.
He followed the correct law, not their lies.
-
No one's seeking a "conviction".
Yeah.. more like a lynching.
I just don't want his sorry bigoted hypocritical ass in the Senate.
Tough for you, because here he comes.
and most dispassionate observers have concluded that Moore's accusers are credible.
Oh bullshit.
You no doubt clucked in glee at the accusations leveled at Bill Clinton, and you've turn a blind eye to the accusations leveled at Roy Moore. Your demand for "proof" is cynical
No, as a matter of fact - I have already answered that accusation. I believed Juanita Broderick, I did. But it was the blue dress that made up my mind. So emphatically NO! My demand is just and remains the same.
Moore's your boy, your redneck, salt-of-the earth religious fanatic. You'll defend him because you view him as a martyr for your cause - just as the Dems defended Clinton to the tune of two terms in the White House.
Nope. If he's dirty, he's gone. All that redneck Christian stuff should have told you that much. I'm pretty used to throwing leaders o8ut on their ass for things that are proven.
Come up with evidence I can judge, or you're just another of the tongue wagglers.
-
Right now the question is WHETHER the allegations are true. Conservatives don;t convict a man on hearsay.
Nobody's convicting him of anything yet; technically, nobody can convict him in a criminal case
because of the expired statute of limitations, and the only court of law into which the allegations can
be heard would be a civil court in the event of litigation from any side.
It is not equal to convicting someone---on "hearsay" or otherwise (I suggest six accusers is
quite a bit more and deeper than mere hearsay)---to suggest that a man facing such accusations
as Mr. Moore faces ought not to think further about running for office until there is a final resolution
of those accusations. Why should the right do what it so often excoriates the left for doing when
the left yields up tainted or at least viably suspect candidates? (Which reminds me: are any
Democrats calling for an investigation into Al Franken's alleged gropery? Edit: word has
just come that Mitch McConnell called for an ethics investigation into Franken, and he called
on Democrats to join in the call.)
I can't fathom any candidate with a conscience (Mr. Moore's supporters speak often of his own
conscience) staying in a race while tainted by the accusations that now taint Mr. Moore. If Mr. Moore
ultimately proves not guilty of the things he is accused of having done, let him run free and clear
for any office he chooses, never mind that he might have one or two other political problems
having nothing to do with the current accusations. But those would be purely political
problems, as opposed to what he faces now.
-
No, he refused to follow the made up bullsh*t that Liberal Kook judges proclaimed to be the law. The law itself goes the opposite of what they said it did.
He followed the correct law, not their lies.
:thumbsup:
-
As a judge, he was reprimanded/removed twice for failing to follow the law.
What law? Please be specific.
As for his bigotry, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.
What disagreement? I simply asked you to come up with an example. And you failed miserably. Contempt prior to investigation. If anyone here is guilty of bigotry, it is you.
But you'll chalk it up to his religion.
I'm not the one here bringing up religion. You are. (See: bigotry)
-
Nobody's convicting him of anything yet; technically, nobody can convict him in a criminal case
because of the expired statute of limitations, and the only court of law into which the allegations can
be heard would be a civil court in the event of litigation from any side.
Yes he is precisely being convicted - just not in a court of law.
It is not equal to convicting someone---on "hearsay" or otherwise (I suggest six accusers is
quite a bit more and deeper than mere hearsay)
Oh baloney. Then Cruz should have stepped down, eh? Because the allegations against him were just as valid as these - read 'valid' as 'vapid'.
to suggest that a man facing such accusations
as Mr. Moore faces ought not to think further about running for office until there is a final resolution of those accusations.
Then there is no sense in running at all. Because these 'November surprises' happen all the time.
Why should the right do what it so often excoriates the left for doing when
the left yields up tainted or at least viably suspect candidates? (Which reminds me: are any
Democrats calling for an investigation into Al Franken's alleged gropery?)
I am not doing what thew left does - They don't care. I care a helluva lot. Character is primary for me. But as part of character, defending the honor of an honorable man requires proof, and not just waggin tongues.
I can't fathom any candidate with a conscience (Mr. Moore's supporters speak often of his own
conscience) staying in a race while tainted by the accusations that now taint Mr. Moore.
That's insanity. Did you say the same for Cruz? Where are all his accusers now?
If Mr. Moore ultimately proves not guilty of the things he is accused of having done, let him run free and clear
for any office he chooses, never mind that he might have one or two other political problems
having nothing to do with the current accusations. But those would be purely political
problems, as opposed to what he faces now.
What he faces now is purely political too. There isn't a whit of evidence. You don't throw a 40 year career away - impeccable in honor - over allegations that amount to nothing more than gossip.
Show me a bastard kid. Show me a blue dress. Show me motel receipts. there is *NOTHING*.
-
If Mr. Moore ultimately proves not guilty of the things he is accused of having done, let him run free and clear
for any office he chooses...
So we have arrived at the place where the populace believes that those accused must now prove their innocence of alleged charges, the presumption of guilt is now of primacy and it is the individual who must prove the charges false.
Gotcha.
-
Nobody's convicting him of anything yet; technically, nobody can convict him in a criminal case
because of the expired statute of limitations, and the only court of law into which the allegations can
be heard would be a civil court in the event of litigation from any side.
It is not equal to convicting someone---on "hearsay" or otherwise (I suggest six accusers is
quite a bit more and deeper than mere hearsay)---to suggest that a man facing such accusations
as Mr. Moore faces ought not to think further about running for office until there is a final resolution
of those accusations. Why should the right do what it so often excoriates the left for doing when
the left yields up tainted or at least viably suspect candidates? (Which reminds me: are any
Democrats calling for an investigation into Al Franken's alleged gropery? Edit: word has
just come that Mitch McConnell called for an ethics investigation into Franken, and he called
on Democrats to join in the call.)
I can't fathom any candidate with a conscience (Mr. Moore's supporters speak often of his own
conscience) staying in a race while tainted by the accusations that now taint Mr. Moore. If Mr. Moore
ultimately proves not guilty of the things he is accused of having done, let him run free and clear
for any office he chooses, never mind that he might have one or two other political problems
having nothing to do with the current accusations. But those would be purely political
problems, as opposed to what he faces now.
Well, Ace, I hate to be the one to break it to you but there is no statute fo limitations on some things in Alabama. Statute: AL § 15-3-1 et seq.
Felonies: 3 years after the commission of the offense.
There is no statute of limitations for: (1) Any capital offense; (2) Any felony involving the use, attempted use, or threat of, violence to a person; (3) Any felony involving serious physical injury or death of a person; (4) Any sex offense involving a victim under 16 years of age, regardless of whether it involves force or serious physical injury or death; (5) Any felony involving arson of any type; (6) Any felony involving forgery of any type; (7) Any felony involving counterfeiting; and (8) Any felony involving drug trafficking.
Emphasis mine.
So the possibility to clear all this up in court exists. It appears, however that the standards of proof for a criminal conviction have not been met, and such proof might not exist.
One of the obvious reasons it might not exist is that this is all a political hit, and not a real complaint.
Filing false charges (making a false report of a crime to police) and altering or fabricating 'evidence' are crimes there, too.
-
Well, Ace, I hate to be the one to break it to you but there is no statute fo limitations on some things in Alabama.
Emphasis mine.
So the possibility to clear all this up in court exists. It appears, however that the standards of proof for a criminal conviction have not been met, and such proof might not exist.
One of the obvious reasons it might not exist is that this is all a political hit, and not a real complaint.
Filing false charges (making a false report of a crime to police) and altering or fabricating 'evidence' are crimes there, too.
B R A V O ! ! !
:hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands:
-
As a judge, he was reprimanded/removed twice for failing to follow the law. That to me, makes him unfit for office. As for his bigotry, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. To me, it's as clear as the nose on his face. But you'll chalk it up to his religion.
What "law" did he fail to follow? He didn't violate any Federal or State law. He upheld the constitution of the state of Alabama.
-
What "law" did he fail to follow? He didn't violate any Federal or State law. He upheld the constitution of the state of Alabama.
Actually he was upholding the Alabama Constitution, as Amended:
Amendment 774 of the Constitution of the State of Alabama (2006)
Amendment 774
Sanctity of Marriage Amendment.
(a) This amendment shall be known and may be cited as the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment.
(b) Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting this unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children. A marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this state.
(c) Marriage is a sacred covenant, solemnized between a man and a woman, which, when the legal capacity and consent of both parties is present, establishes their relationship as husband and wife, and which is recognized by the state as a civil contract.
(d) No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to parties of the same sex.
(e) The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred or was alleged to have occurred as a result of the law of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a marriage license was issued.
(f) The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any common law marriage of parties of the same sex.
(g) A union replicating marriage of or between persons of the same sex in the State of Alabama or in any other jurisdiction shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state as a marriage or other union replicating marriage.[1]
https://ballotpedia.org/Amendments_501_through_926,_Alabama_Constitution (https://ballotpedia.org/Amendments_501_through_926,_Alabama_Constitution)
Amendment approval
This legislatively referred constitutional amendment was passed on June 6, 2006 via primary election approval of Alabama Sanctity of Marriage, Constitutional Amendment 774.
Just doing what he swore he would in the oath of office. http://eforms.alacourt.gov/Oaths%20of%20Office/Oath%20of%20Office%20Judge,%20Justice.pdf (http://eforms.alacourt.gov/Oaths%20of%20Office/Oath%20of%20Office%20Judge,%20Justice.pdf)
Just because he would not go against Alabama's Constitution because a Federal Court made up a 'right', doesn't mean he was breaking a law. He was defying the opinion of a handful of people in black robes vs. the approval of the people of Alabama for an Amendment to their Constitution.
Considering there is no authority granted to the Federal Government to oversee matters of marriage by the Constitution of the United States, I would think the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States would apply, even against judicial overreach by SCOTUS.
-
Actually he was upholding the Alabama Constitution, as Amended:
Amendment 774 of the Constitution of the State of Alabama (2006)
https://ballotpedia.org/Amendments_501_through_926,_Alabama_Constitution (https://ballotpedia.org/Amendments_501_through_926,_Alabama_Constitution)
Amendment approval
This legislatively referred constitutional amendment was passed on June 6, 2006 via primary election approval of Alabama Sanctity of Marriage, Constitutional Amendment 774.
Just doing what he swore he would in the oath of office. http://eforms.alacourt.gov/Oaths%20of%20Office/Oath%20of%20Office%20Judge,%20Justice.pdf (http://eforms.alacourt.gov/Oaths%20of%20Office/Oath%20of%20Office%20Judge,%20Justice.pdf)
Just because he would not go against Alabama's Constitution because a Federal Court made up a 'right', doesn't mean he was breaking a law. He was defying the opinion of a handful of people in black robes vs. the approval of the people of Alabama for an Amendment to their Constitution.
Considering there is no authority granted to the Federal Government to oversee matters of marriage by the Constitution of the United States, I would think the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States would apply, even against judicial overreach by SCOTUS.
And there goes the Bigot accusations.
(http://www.overthewallbaseball.com/uploads/2/1/4/2/21423784/1372922384.png)
-
Well, Ace, I hate to be the one to break it to you but there is no statute fo limitations on some things in Alabama.
Emphasis mine.
I appreciate the clarification; I was genuinely certain that in terms of criminal charges there had been
a statute of limitations.
So the possibility to clear all this up in court exists. It appears, however that the standards of proof for a criminal conviction have not been met, and such proof might not exist.
One of the obvious reasons it might not exist is that this is all a political hit, and not a real complaint.
They might, they might not. I'd been thinking up to and including now that it was likelier to come
forth in civil litigation first, based on what's been said around all sides until now. Would it surprise
me if the entire matter were proven to be a political hit job? Hardly. But right now I really
don't know if it was. I know only that some extremely serious accusations are leveled at Mr.
Moore. And we have a serious problem in terms of where to go if a) Mr. Moore is proven to
have committed the sexual crimes of which he's accused; or, b) if the entire business does
prove a political hit job.
Either one would be described most politely as grave.
-
For the cuckservatives, there is no hill on which they are willing to make a last stand. There is an infinite variety of retreats in their quiver, and that is all.
They once again counsel "retreat."
Look at you all proud of your defense of lecher Moore...oblivious to the stink coming off your self-righteous indignation. pitiful
-
Look at you all proud of your defense of lecher Moore...oblivious to the stink coming off your self-righteous indignation. pitiful
Pound the table Councler(interestingly my spelt checker wants to put "Uncleaner" here :shrug: )...pound the table...... for you have neither law nor fact..... only bellicose fiction is your ally.
-
A win win for you.
So why all the b*tching?
@skeeter
Ask a Norwegian.
They know Jazzhead's type well enough to put up road crossing signs.
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03231/troll-beware1_3231776b.jpg)
-
No, he refused to follow the made up bullsh*t that Liberal Kook judges proclaimed to be the law. The law itself goes the opposite of what they said it did.
He followed the correct law, not their lies.
No, he defied the law. It was a lawful order. If you can't follow a lawful order, you resign. You don't flaunt your authority and force your removal. Moore's an Elmer Gantry with delusions of grandeur. He was an officer of the court who defied the law. He is unfit to serve in the Senate.
Conservatives should believe in the rule of law, not this drunk-on-religion nihilism.
-
No, he defied the law. It was a lawful order. If you can't follow a lawful order, you resign. You don't flaunt your authority and force your removal. Moore's an Elmer Gantry with delusions of grandeur. He was an officer of the court who defied the law. He is unfit to serve in the Senate.
Conservatives should believe in the rule of law, not this drunk-on-religion nihilism.
There IS a difference between the written Amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alabama, approved by vote of the people, and a ruling by some judges in DC. One is truly written law, the other judicial fiat.
-
@Jazzhead
Conservatives should believe in the rule of law, not this drunk-on-religion nihilism.
That's a Classic Jazzy. :silly:
-
There IS a difference between the written Amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alabama, approved by vote of the people, and a ruling by some judges in DC. One is truly written law, the other judicial fiat.
The man was an officer of the court. It was a lawful order. If you cannot follow a lawful order, you resign. Not force your own removal by your insubordinate behavior. I consider such open defiance of one's oath of office a disqualifier for future public service.
-
No, he defied the law. It was a lawful order.
It was not. It was an order issued under false pretenses. It had no moral compulsion behind it.
If you can't follow a lawful order, you resign. You don't flaunt your authority and force your removal.
When your colleagues go full Nazi, you don't have to follow them down that dark path. You can and should defy them. It is in fact what you must do.
Moore's an Elmer Gantry with delusions of grandeur. He was an officer of the court who defied the law. He is unfit to serve in the Senate.
I don't care what motivates him so long as it achieves the correct result. He didn't defy the law, he protected it while others undermined it. That's what we need to keep "consent of the governed."
Conservatives should believe in the rule of law, not this drunk-on-religion nihilism.
We do. That why we don't accept the utter horse sh*t that some judges try to pawn off on us. We can read for our selves, and we can tell when they are lying about the meaning of the 14th amendment.
-
The man was an officer of the court. It was a lawful order. If you cannot follow a lawful order, you resign. Not force your own removal by your insubordinate behavior. I consider such open defiance of one's oath of office a disqualifier for future public service.
@corbe he's on a roll....
-
The man was an officer of the court. It was a lawful order. If you cannot follow a lawful order, you resign. Not force your own removal by your insubordinate behavior. I consider such open defiance of one's oath of office a disqualifier for future public service.
I consider defying the lies of Liberal Kooks in Judges robes to be an excellent qualifier for public service. I would like to see enough of such people elected that we can impeach, and throw off the bench these liars that would twist our laws to their own personal preferences instead of applying them as they were intended.
These liberal liars turn "consent of the governed" on it's head. The law never meant what they are trying to twist out of it's verbiage or "penumbra". "Sophistry" does not constitute law.
-
It was a lawful order.
It was no more a "lawful order" than if the court declared that all caucasian male children under 2 years of age are not human beings, and must be euthanized for social justice.
It was no more a "lawful order" than when another court declared that blacks were only 3/5 a human being.
It was no more a "lawful order" than when another court declared Jews had no right to possess property or be in public spaces.
In short - since you are deliberately as dense as a ton of lead sewer pipe, your homosexual marriage ruling is bunk and of no legality. How many military divisions does your beloved court possess in order to force that shit down our throats? Moore upheld his oath to God, to Alabama, to the 1st Amendment of the Constitution and defied a lawless SCOTUS. Amen
-
It was no more a "lawful order" than if the court declared that all caucasian male children under 2 years of age are not human beings, and must be euthanized for social justice.
The ol’ rascal probably kicks himself everyday that he wasn’t born in Herod’s time, then.
Defy the king’s order and no societal stigmas on goin’ a-courtin’ with the teens!
-
No, he defied the law.
Again, what law did he defy? Please be specific.
-
The ol’ rascal probably kicks himself everyday that he wasn’t born in Herod’s time, then.
Defy the king’s order and no societal stigmas on goin’ a-courtin’ with the teens!
We gots no societal stigmas again't men a marrying' men for perverted sex right now by dem big city lickers!
So's I guess yer outrage over age is only met by his outrage over homos.
Kings and courts can go pound sand.
-
The man was an officer of the court. It was a lawful order. If you cannot follow a lawful order, you resign. Not force your own removal by your insubordinate behavior. I consider such open defiance of one's oath of office a disqualifier for future public service.
A Federal Court ordered him (and the other justices) to ignore and act contrary to the specific wording of the Constitution of the State of Alabama which they were sworn to uphold.
It wasn't defiance of his oath, it was in fulfillment of it.
The SCOTUS didn't sign his paycheck, the people of the State of Alabama did, and they had overwhelmingly voted to approve the Amendment in question. He was subordinate to the People and Constitution of Alabama, not five black robes.
No where in the Constitution of the United States is the Federal Government empowered to determine the nature of the Sacrament of Marriage. Where's your 'wall of separation" between Church and State when the State decides it wants to decide what constitutes marriage--or is that just a one-way wall?
-
No where in the Constitution of the United States is the Federal Government empowered to determine the nature of the Sacrament of Marriage. Where's your 'wall of separation" between Church and State when the State decides it wants to decide what constitutes marriage--or is that just a one-way wall?
He's going to chuck a play out of the Marxist handbook and tell you that 'Equal protection under the law' trumps the 1st Amendment. Essentially his position is that the mythical 'wall of separation' only goes one way: to separate society and government FROM religion, and FORCE religion to modify it's tenets to accommodate those rights SCOTUS and society create out of thin air to create special protections for designated constituencies benefiting the Statist Oligarchy.
-
He's going to chuck a play out of the Marxist handbook and tell you that 'Equal protection under the law' trumps the 1st Amendment. Essentially his position is that the mythical 'wall of separation' only goes one way: to separate society and government FROM religion, and FORCE religion to modify it's tenets to accommodate those rights SCOTUS and society create out of thin air to create special protections for designated constituencies benefiting the Statist Oligarchy.
Just perusing the Alabama Constitution, I'd bet he'd really be frosted to find out that those convicted of homosexuality were deprived of the right to vote at one time...but that was back when it was considered a crime or a mental disorder and 'celebrated' about as much as schizophrenia or larceny.
-
This has nothing to do with the Tenth Amendment or states' rights. The federal government didn't remove Moore from his position for insubordination - the State of Alabama did, twice.
If Moore's conscience couldn't permit him to follow a lawful court order, his duty was to resign. Not to defy the law, as an officer of the court. Alabama removed him, in order to uphold the rule of law.
I'll say it again - Moore deserves no respect from conservatives. The rule of law is the glue that keeps our Republic together, not Moore's brand of religion-fueled nihilism.
-
This has nothing to do with the Tenth Amendment or states' rights. The federal government didn't remove Moore from his position for insubordination - the State of Alabama did, twice.
If Moore's conscience couldn't permit him to follow a lawful court order, his duty was to resign. Not to defy the law, as an officer of the court. Alabama removed him, in order to uphold the rule of law.
I'll say it again - Moore deserves no respect from conservatives. The rule of law is the glue that keeps our Republic together, not Moore's brand of religion-fueled nihilism.
Yawn. You're just pissed because you disagreed with the Alabama court ruling and Alabama Law.
Gee whiz, if the Governor had had the stones George Wallace did, there would have been Federal Troops down there making sure homosexuals could get a "marriage" license.
It would have been more honest than just throwing Moore under the bus.
The order in question:
“Effective immediately, no probate judge of the State of Alabama nor any agent or employee of any Alabama probate judge shall issue or recognize a marriage license that is inconsistent” with the Alabama Constitution or state law, the chief justice wrote in his order.
To be accurate, the ruling against Alabama law came from a District Court, not the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS didn't rule until its 5-4 decision a couple years later.
Since Judge Granade moved last month to declare Alabama’s prohibitions against same-sex marriage unconstitutional, the chief justice has insisted that the probate judges were not required to abide by her decisions. But, in an interview on Wednesday, he said he thought he could do little more than guide the probate judges on how to respond.
“I think I’ve done what I can do: advise the state court probate judges that they’re not bound by any ruling of the Federal District Court,” he said.
But by Sunday night, the chief justice, faced with the prospect of many judges allowing same-sex marriages to move forward, acted, in part, “to ensure the orderly administration of justice within the State of Alabama.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/us/gay-marriage-set-to-begin-in-alabama-amid-protest.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/us/gay-marriage-set-to-begin-in-alabama-amid-protest.html)
The chief justice’s misgivings speak to widespread concerns here about federal overreach and same-sex marriage in Alabama, where about 81 percent of voters in 2006 supported a constitutional amendment banning gay nuptials. Few here doubt the force of his belief that Judge Granade’s orders hold only “persuasive authority,” and not binding power, on Alabama judges.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/us/gay-marriage-set-to-begin-in-alabama-amid-protest.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/us/gay-marriage-set-to-begin-in-alabama-amid-protest.html)
One guy in a black robe vs 81% of Alabama voters and the State Constitution.
For you it appears the "Rule of Law" is not the factor, here, but which 'ruler' is making them.
So, who is that Judge who ruled against the Rule of Alabama Law?
A Former employee of Jeff Sessions. Bush Appointee.
In addition to the gay marriage ruling, Hillyer pointed to what he called Granade's "appalling" ruling last summer against the Catholic-affiliated Eternal World Television Network in its challenge to a federal law requiring it to provide employees with health insurance that included contraception.
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/02/activist_judge_careful_jurist.html (http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/02/activist_judge_careful_jurist.html)
One of the justifications for striking down that law was the alleged change in public opinion about 'gay marriage'. So Federal judges are making rulings against State Constitutional Law based on allegations of public opinion, and not on the law?
She wasn't upholding the rule of law, she was butchering it.
Anti Christian, anti traditional marriage, and one who ties in with the current AG. Those mangroves sure have tangled roots.
-
Yawn. You're just pissed because you disagreed with the Alabama court ruling and Alabama Law.
It's not me who was pissed. The State of Alabama was pissed. Moore was removed - twice - from his post by the State of Alabama for taking the law into his own hands. That's nihilism.
There's a right way and a wrong way to deal with "liberal kook judges". The wrong way is to abuse your authority as an officer of the court.
Moore is unfit because he deliberately violated his oath of office. This isn't a theocracy, with judges free to ignore the law as they believe "God" sees fit. If he deemed a higher loyalty to God, then he should have resigned.
-
It's not me who was pissed. The State of Alabama was pissed. Moore was removed - twice - from his post by the State of Alabama for taking the law into his own hands. That's nihilism.
There's a right way and a wrong way to deal with "liberal kook judges". The wrong way is to abuse your authority as an officer of the court.
Moore is unfit because he deliberately violated his oath of office. This isn't a theocracy, with judges free to ignore the law as they believe "God" sees fit. If he deemed a higher loyalty to God, then he should have resigned.
@Jazzhead
But you're ok with judges abusing your authority to invent a right to abortion and a right to gay marriage.
Moore had far more legal support for his decisions then either of the above.
-
Again, what law did he defy? Please be specific.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for him to answer that question if I were you!
-
Yawn. You're just pissed because you disagreed with the Alabama court ruling and Alabama Law.
Gee whiz, if the Governor had had the stones George Wallace did, there would have been Federal Troops down there making sure homosexuals could get a "marriage" license.
It would have been more honest than just throwing Moore under the bus.
The order in question: To be accurate, the ruling against Alabama law came from a District Court, not the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS didn't rule until its 5-4 decision a couple years later.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/us/gay-marriage-set-to-begin-in-alabama-amid-protest.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/us/gay-marriage-set-to-begin-in-alabama-amid-protest.html)
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/us/gay-marriage-set-to-begin-in-alabama-amid-protest.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/us/gay-marriage-set-to-begin-in-alabama-amid-protest.html)
One guy in a black robe vs 81% of Alabama voters and the State Constitution.
For you it appears the "Rule of Law" is not the factor, here, but which 'ruler' is making them.
So, who is that Judge who ruled against the Rule of Alabama Law?
A Former employee of Jeff Sessions. Bush Appointee. http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/02/activist_judge_careful_jurist.html (http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/02/activist_judge_careful_jurist.html)
One of the justifications for striking down that law was the alleged change in public opinion about 'gay marriage'. So Federal judges are making rulings against State Constitutional Law based on allegations of public opinion, and not on the law?
She wasn't upholding the rule of law, she was butchering it.
Anti Christian, anti traditional marriage, and one who ties in with the current AG. Those mangroves sure have tangled roots.
Just to add -- Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution states: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction." So a Federal District Court had NO jurisdiction!
-
@Jazzhead
Still waiting. Specifically, what law did Judge Moore defy?
-
@Jazzhead
But you're ok with judges abusing your authority to invent a right to abortion and a right to gay marriage.
Moore had far more legal support for his decisions then either of the above.
It is the job of a judge to interpret and construe the law, and apply it to the facts of the case at hand. You may disagree with a court's decisions regarding abortion and gay marriage, but such decisions are within their authority (and are, of course, subject to review by an appellate court). Moore, on the other hand, preached defiance of the law, in violation of his oath as the State of Alabama found on two separate occasions.
The rule of law is simply not compatible with Moore's brand of nihilism. As a conservative, I'd think you'd care deeply about that.
-
@Jazzhead
Still waiting. Specifically, what law did Judge Moore defy?
I'd google it if you really care to know. Doesn't matter to me. Whatever it was, he got kicked off the Alabama State Supreme Court for it...
plus he only gets wood for little girls.
-
I'd google it if you really care to know. Doesn't matter to me. Whatever it was, he got kicked off the Alabama State Supreme Court for it...
plus he only gets wood for little girls.
That is just plain insitefull stupid crap!
-
That is just plain insitefull stupid crap!
You're welcome.
-
It is the job of a judge to interpret and construe the law, and apply it to the facts of the case at hand. You may disagree with a court's decisions regarding abortion and gay marriage, but such decisions are within their authority (and are, of course, subject to review by an appellate court). Moore, on the other hand, preached defiance of the law, in violation of his oath as the State of Alabama found on two separate occasions.
The rule of law is simply not compatible with Moore's brand of nihilism. As a conservative, I'd think you'd care deeply about that.
IOW, he found in a manner of which you disagreed. *****rollingeyes*****
-
It's not me who was pissed. The State of Alabama was pissed. Moore was removed - twice - from his post by the State of Alabama for taking the law into his own hands. That's nihilism.
There's a right way and a wrong way to deal with "liberal kook judges". The wrong way is to abuse your authority as an officer of the court.
Moore is unfit because he deliberately violated his oath of office. This isn't a theocracy, with judges free to ignore the law as they believe "God" sees fit. If he deemed a higher loyalty to God, then he should have resigned.
He stood in defiance of an order contrary to the Constitution of the State of Alabama.
Eighty One Percent of Alabama voters favored the Constitutional Amendment that defined marriage as between one man and one woman.
Did anyone ask the people of the State of Alabama?
-
BREAKING: Roy Moore Is Still An Azzhole.
News at 11!
-
I'd google it if you really care to know. Doesn't matter to me. Whatever it was, he got kicked off the Alabama State Supreme Court for it...
plus he only gets wood for little girls.
Talk about a bridge too far.
**nononono*
If you want to come out of your closet and accuse the man of being a child molester, you will stand with the other liberals here who have all but done so. Maybe you can carry their rainbow flag. Maybe you have your own.
When a District Judge, a Bush appointee and former Sessions employee tried to order the Supreme Court of Alabama (and other courts in the State) to issue licenses which would have been contrary to the Constitution of the State, Moore ordered the probate judges not to issue those licenses. The Constitutional Amendment which defined marriage between one man and one woman had been approved by the electorate of the State of Alabama with 81% voting in favor of the Amendment.
Roy Moore was upholding Alabama Law, the Constitution, and the will of the people, in the face of one district judge. For this, he was removed from office, for this the SPLC considers him on their 'naughty list'.
-
Talk about a bridge too far.
**nononono*
If you want to come out of your closet and accuse the man of being a child molester, you will stand with the other liberals here who have all but done so. Maybe you can carry their rainbow flag. Maybe you have your own.
When a District Judge, a Bush appointee and former Sessions employee tried to order the Supreme Court of Alabama (and other courts in the State) to issue licenses which would have been contrary to the Constitution of the State, Moore ordered the probate judges not to issue those licenses. The Constitutional Amendment which defined marriage between one man and one woman had been approved by the electorate of the State of Alabama with 81% voting in favor of the Amendment.
Roy Moore was upholding Alabama Law, the Constitution, and the will of the people, in the face of one district judge. For this, he was removed from office, for this the SPLC considers him on their 'naughty list'.
These folks really are schizophrenic. Isn't lowering the age of consent a pet issue of the homosexuals?
-
BREAKING: Roy Moore Is Still An Azzhole.
News at 11!
Says who?
-
Talk about a bridge too far.
**nononono*
If you want to come out of your closet and accuse the man of being a child molester, you will stand with the other liberals here who have all but done so. Maybe you can carry their rainbow flag. Maybe you have your own.
When a District Judge, a Bush appointee and former Sessions employee tried to order the Supreme Court of Alabama (and other courts in the State) to issue licenses which would have been contrary to the Constitution of the State, Moore ordered the probate judges not to issue those licenses. The Constitutional Amendment which defined marriage between one man and one woman had been approved by the electorate of the State of Alabama with 81% voting in favor of the Amendment.
Roy Moore was upholding Alabama Law, the Constitution, and the will of the people, in the face of one district judge. For this, he was removed from office, for this the SPLC considers him on their 'naughty list'.
AND...for which the Federal District Courts had NO jurisdiction. Since it involved the Constitution of a State, only the SCOTUS had original jurisdiction (US Constitution, Article III, Section 2)
-
Says who?
Says I.
Exhibit A)
A man who lives in Alabama in 2017 dressed like he is Pecos Bill or the cowboy from The Village People....
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_960w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2017/10/17/Investigative/Images/853873576.jpg&w=480)(http://www.retrocrush.com/archive2003/vp/card.jpg)
-
Says I.
Exhibit A)
A man who lives in Alabama in 2017 dressed like he is Pecos Bill or the cowboy from The Village People....
With the exception of the funny bend of the hat (which may be a regional thing), I'd dare say I'd be seen looking the same way if I were dressed up.
-
With the exception of the funny bend of the hat (which may be a regional thing), I'd dare say I'd be seen looking the same way if I were dressed up.
Not uncommon in the Dakotas, Wyoming, and the 'working' parts of Colorado and New Mexico, just to name a few places (Utah, Idaho, rural Nevada, too).
-
Not uncommon in the Dakotas, Wyoming, and the 'working' parts of Colorado and New Mexico, just to name a few places (Utah, Idaho, rural Nevada, too).
Texas, North Louisiana and Mississippi, Missouri, Some parts of South Carolina, all of North Carolina, and probably severl others as well.
-
Not uncommon in the Dakotas, Wyoming, and the 'working' parts of Colorado and New Mexico, just to name a few places (Utah, Idaho, rural Nevada, too).
Where’s the cutoff? I live in KS and sometimes wear an oilskin hat in bad weather. Wouldn’t want to cross the regional douchiness line.
-
Not uncommon in the Dakotas, Wyoming, and the 'working' parts of Colorado and New Mexico, just to name a few places (Utah, Idaho, rural Nevada, too).
Other than I hate ties. :) A lady might talk me into a bolo, something silver and turquoise, but it's hard to find one that ain't as big as a belt buckle.
Ties are for funerals, because you can't get out of wearing there. :shrug:
-
With the exception of the funny bend of the hat (which may be a regional thing), I'd dare say I'd be seen looking the same way if I were dressed up.
Yeah, but you live where that is the fashion. Roy don't. He'd be less ridiculous looking if he wore a Hawaiian skirt and flip flops.
-
Where’s the cutoff? I live in KS and sometimes wear an oilskin hat in bad weather. Wouldn’t want to cross the regional douchiness line.
I have kin in Overland Park, Olathe, Topeka, Wamego, Manhattan, and Garden City... All shitkickers, big belt buckles, and cowboy hats... And not uncommon, from among those I've seen.
-
Yeah, but you live where that is the fashion. Roy don't. He'd be less ridiculous looking if he wore a Hawaiian skirt and flip flops.
LOL! So you don't get south to Kentucky and Tennessee, huh? Never been to Alabama, but I've been to Mississippi, which is spittin distance... Redneck is redneck, everywhere I've been. To include Michigan, and especially the UP. rural Illinois and Indiana.
Wait... Is Indiana racist now? Should that be NativeAmericana?
-
I have kin in Overland Park, Olathe, Topeka, Wamego, Manhattan, and Garden City... All shitkickers, big belt buckles, and cowboy hats... And not uncommon, from among those I've seen.
Guess I’m safe, then. My profile pic is of the area around Castle Rock, near Quinter.
-
Other than I hate ties. :) A lady might talk me into a bolo, something silver and turquoise, but it's hard to find one that ain't as big as a belt buckle.
Ties are for funerals, because you can't get out of wearing there. :shrug:
I wore ties for two years in private school. I haven't worn them that many times since. Real ones have too much ligature potential (not to mention a propensity for getting into everything from coffee to machinery), and clip on deals are just fake to me, so it's a bolo or nothing as a rule, unless I'm back East at a funeral or wedding, 'cause they just don't 'get' a bolo out that way. We're seeing that about the hat and vest right here, too.
-
I wore ties for two years in private school. I haven't worn them that many times since. Real ones have too much ligature potential (not to mention a propensity for getting into everything from coffee to machinery), and clip on deals are just fake to me, so it's a bolo or nothing as a rule, unless I'm back East at a funeral or wedding, 'cause they just don't 'get' a bolo out that way. We're seeing that about the hat and vest right here, too.
I purposefully got mine caught in the paper shredder at work once. Worked like a charm. Ties were declared a safety hazard unless yhere was a client in the office.
-
I wore ties for two years in private school. I haven't worn them that many times since. Real ones have too much ligature potential (not to mention a propensity for getting into everything from coffee to machinery), and clip on deals are just fake to me, so it's a bolo or nothing as a rule, unless I'm back East at a funeral or wedding, 'cause they just don't 'get' a bolo out that way. We're seeing that about the hat and vest right here, too.
Yeah, that's all right... I have one tie, and it's black.
:beer:
-
Back on topic...the Gov now announces support for Roy Moore.
-
Back on topic...the Gov now announces support for Roy Moore.
Excellent news! Thanks!
-
Back on topic...the Gov now announces support for Roy Moore.
Yeah. We wouldn't want to miss a gripping moment of the Rev Hayseed soap opera sponsored by Palmolive.
-
Guess I’m safe, then. My profile pic is of the area around Castle Rock, near Quinter.
I been through there about a hundred times... That's on 70... Western KS... Kinda by Oakley. There's a diner right in around there I stopped at whenever I went through... Short of Oakley heading west... Right off the freeway. That might have been Quinter.
-
Yeah, that's all right... I have one tie, and it's black.
:beer:
LOL! :beer: My one tie is black as well!
-
I'd google it if you really care to know. Doesn't matter to me.
Truth does matter to me.
-
These folks really are schizophrenic. Isn't lowering the age of consent a pet issue of the homosexuals?
While this is going on here, the French are discussing establishing an 'age of consent'. The age they are looking at? Thirteen.
-
While this is going on here, the French are discussing establishing an 'age of consent'. The age they are looking at? Thirteen.
Yikes! Skin and bones? No thanks. A woman doesn't become interesting until her 40’s.
-
Yikes! Skin and bones? No thanks. A woman doesn't become interesting until her 40’s.
Some like 'em built for comfort, some for speed... :shrug:
-
Yikes! Skin and bones? No thanks. A woman doesn't become interesting until her 40’s.
I'm going to be 62 tomorrow and, to be honest, women my own age or within five or ten years
either way are more attractive to me.
The last time I was attracted to a fourteen-year-old girl was when I was fourteen. And
when I turned fourteen, Cream was about to play their farewell concert at Royal Albert Hall
and Richard Nixon was freshly elected to the presidency.
-
Some like 'em built for comfort, some for speed... :shrug:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B_uGQC6fgM
-
You Guys are all pikers here in Texas I've seen guys get out of a prius at the local grocery with Spurs on, get back to me when you get properly outfitted.
OK, he did look like a meth head.
-
With the exception of the funny bend of the hat (which may be a regional thing), I'd dare say I'd be seen looking the same way if I were dressed up.
Heh!
When I was much younger, I felt comfy in black Levis and a black teeshirt.
Dropped that shortly after moving to San Francisco soon's I realized that was the reason Guys I didn't know from Adam were hitting on me.
-
Heh!
When I was much younger, I felt comfy in black Levis and a black teeshirt.
Dropped that shortly after moving to San Francisco soon's I realized that was the reason Guys I didn't know from Adam were hitting on me.
Yeah, well, that don't work that way around here... But the gals, now, that was another thing (back in the day)...
-
Heh!
When I was much younger, I felt comfy in black Levis and a black teeshirt.
Dropped that shortly after moving to San Francisco soon's I realized that was the reason Guys I didn't know from Adam were hitting on me.
Turns out I had to be briefed on the 'what not to wear stuff' by cousins back east so I wasn't sending the wrong signals when I went for a visit. Here, having a bandana hanging out of your pocket just means you didn't get it stuffed into your pocket. Some places, depending on the color, that (and other stuff) means things. :shrug:
-
Turns out I had to be briefed on the 'what not to wear stuff' by cousins back east so I wasn't sending the wrong signals when I went for a visit. Here, having a bandana hanging out of your pocket just means you didn't get it stuffed into your pocket. Some places, depending on the color, that (and other stuff) means things. :shrug:
Powers Booths breaks it down for Pacino.....
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_ok_SM-aSb4
-
Powers Booths breaks it down for Pacino.....
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_ok_SM-aSb4
Yeah, I heard all that (and more, 'cause there was a gang dimension to it, too) and decided living back there would be dangerous. Sometimes a snot rag is a just snot rag, although I have used a bandana for everything from a bandage to a dust mask. They're handy to have, but, sheesh!
-
Yeah, but you live where that is the fashion. Roy don't. He'd be less ridiculous looking if he wore a Hawaiian skirt and flip flops.
@Frank Cannon, no. NO. Don’t promote flip-flops, not even hypothetically. I just broke out in hives.
Sorry but I didn’t think there were any cowboys in Alabama. It’s an affectation on his part to make him seem folksy.
I live in redneck country. My father-in-law is a country boy. When he has to dress up, it’s a black suit with a solid silk tie—-pale green or silver are my favorites. Same for my husband.
-
@Frank Cannon, no. NO. Don’t promote flip-flops, not even hypothetically. I just broke out in hives.
Sorry but I didn’t think there were any cowboys in Alabama. It’s an affectation on his part to make him seem folksy.
I live in redneck country. My father-in-law is a country boy. When he has to dress up, it’s a black suit with a solid silk tie—-pale green or silver are my favorites. Same for my husband.
In the name of all things holy, NOT a Bolo Tie. No. It's a disease here in AZ.
-
In the name of all things holy, NOT a Bolo Tie. No. It's a disease here in AZ.
Disease in AZ is someone AZ put upon the rest of us, namely Johnny McLame.
-
@Frank Cannon, no. NO. Don’t promote flip-flops, not even hypothetically. I just broke out in hives.
Sorry but I didn’t think there were any cowboys in Alabama. It’s an affectation on his part to make him seem folksy.
I live in redneck country. My father-in-law is a country boy. When he has to dress up, it’s a black suit with a solid silk tie—-pale green or silver are my favorites. Same for my husband.
You know were I was driving with the flip flop comment.
BTW, black suit and solid tie? Do they part time as ushers at funerals? Geez. Put me to sleep.
-
In the name of all things holy, NOT a Bolo Tie. No. It's a disease here in AZ.
Bolo ties have been a punch line for decades. Hell, even McCloud didn't wear one.....
(http://www.sitcomsonline.com/photopost/data/2614/mccloud010SamMcCloud.jpg)
Bottom line, Moore looks like a clown in the hat and vest.
-
In the name of all things holy, NOT a Bolo Tie. No. It's a disease here in AZ.
@Cyber Liberty
No, a silk tie! I've never seen anyone wear one of those (a bolo).
-
Bottom line, Moore looks like a clown in the hat and vest.
If he got a suit to match the hat, he could be Jim Leavelle.
-
Back on topic...the Gov now announces support for Roy Moore.
@RetBobbyMI
Uh-huh.
She says she has no reason to disbelieve the accusers, but she will vote for Moore anyway because she believes in the Republican party.
Is this really all right with you? I mean, as a conservative? The woman is voting for someone she thinks molested a 14 year old because---politics?
-
You know were I was driving with the flip flop comment.
BTW, black suit and solid tie? Do they part time as ushers at funerals? Geez. Put me to sleep.
@Frank Cannon
Yeah, it's just that it's the off season and I need to try and forget they exist.
Yes, a nice black suit---sharper than navy---and a tie in gleaming silver silk....or any bright color. What would you suggest?
(https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1ljhILXXXXXaZXXXXq6xXFXXXT/men-suit-set-with-vest-business-wedding-Hodginsii-men-s-plaid-suit-classic-slim-formal-dress.jpg)
-
Okay, this guy could use an injection of testosterone, but ignore his face.
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/8a/0f/87/8a0f87c1207deb321e2560f92993bd99--fitted-suits-tailored-suits.jpg)
-
Bolo ties have been a punch line for decades. Hell, even McCloud didn't wear one.....
(http://www.sitcomsonline.com/photopost/data/2614/mccloud010SamMcCloud.jpg)
McCloud was all Hat. No Cattle.
Duel? Please.
-
@Cyber Liberty
No, a silk tie! I've never seen anyone wear one of those (a bolo).
Lucky you! They make my skin crawl.
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0618/0989/files/Celebrity_John_Travolta_Wearing_Bolo_Tie_as_Vincent_Vega_in_Pulp_Fiction_grande.jpg)
-
I going with something like this being closer to @Frank Cannon style
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/e6/5d/f9/e65df98b59ad0d66a00b94d3c175b01b.jpg)
-
@RetBobbyMI
Uh-huh.
She says she has no reason to disbelieve the accusers, but she will vote for Moore anyway because she believes in the Republican party.
Is this really all right with you? I mean, as a conservative? The woman is voting for someone she thinks molested a 14 year old because---politics?
So where is that "phone" in the room? That Mom says never existed?
Maybe that is why The "female" gov of the State is voting for more ..MOORE. She can see thru the leftist attack..BS, that some just cannot. @CatherineofAragon
-
From this...
Back on topic...the Gov now announces support for Roy Moore.
you got this:
@RetBobbyMI
She says she has no reason to disbelieve the accusers, but she will vote for Moore anyway because she believes in the Republican party.
Is this really all right with you? I mean, as a conservative? The woman is voting for someone she thinks molested a 14 year old because---politics?
**nononono*
-
@RetBobbyMI
Uh-huh.
She says she has no reason to disbelieve the accusers, but she will vote for Moore anyway because she believes in the Republican party.
Is this really all right with you? I mean, as a conservative? The woman is voting for someone she thinks molested a 14 year old because---politics?
She also said she had no reason to disbelieve Moore.
-
She also said she had no reason to disbelieve Moore.
In other words just more she said he said with zero actual evidence to go on other than the records of those involved. Put me down as coming down on the side of Judge Moore in that fight.
-
In other words just more she said he said with zero actual evidence to go on other than the records of those involved. Put me down as coming down on the side of Judge Moore in that fight.
I find it interesting that almost all of those defending Moore here are Western men, and a few Southern (Yourself, being Texan, both Western and Southern). There's something in that... Dunno what.
-
I find it interesting that almost all of those defending Moore here are Western men, and a few Southern (Yourself, being Texan, both Western and Southern). There's something in that... Dunno what.
Stereotyping?
-
So where is that "phone" in the room? That Mom says never existed?
Maybe that is why The "female" gov of the State is voting for more ..MOORE. She can see thru the leftist attack..BS, that some just cannot. @CatherineofAragon
LOL
-
****slapping Not one more ounce of credible evidence has been produced since the initial allegations, because they have none. Everything they said has been disproven.
-
From this...
you got this:
**nononono*
@Cyber Liberty
No, from this, and God knows how many other sources:
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)
Move beyond Moore's campaign newsletter for news about this mess.
-
Lucky you! They make my skin crawl.
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0618/0989/files/Celebrity_John_Travolta_Wearing_Bolo_Tie_as_Vincent_Vega_in_Pulp_Fiction_grande.jpg)
@Cyber Liberty
Fantastic movie, though.
-
I going with something like this being closer to @Frank Cannon style
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/e6/5d/f9/e65df98b59ad0d66a00b94d3c175b01b.jpg)
@RoosGirl
That's a twofer right there---you can wear it to dinner and then drape it over your floor.
-
She also said she had no reason to disbelieve Moore.
@RetBobbyMI
No...actually she didn't. Not in the article I referenced.
The statement wouldn't make sense.
-
I going with something like this being closer to @Frank Cannon style
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/e6/5d/f9/e65df98b59ad0d66a00b94d3c175b01b.jpg)
I have a similar jacket in a less shiny blue.
-
@RoosGirl
That's a twofer right there---you can wear it to dinner and then drape it over your floor.
You could only dream that my jacket would be draped on your floor sister.
-
You could only dream that my jacket would be draped on your floor sister.
I was thinking used to upholster the dining room chairs.
-
I was thinking used to upholster the dining room chairs.
You running an 1800's bordello?
-
You running an 1800's bordello?
It's actually a 1-877 number. Only $5.99/min
-
I find it interesting that almost all of those defending Moore here are Western men, and a few Southern (Yourself, being Texan, both Western and Southern). There's something in that... Dunno what.
Well this Southerner is down with Moore. Does Southern Sicily count? South shore Staten Island? I have a Bollo tie and a bitchin’ western hat?
Isn’t it obvious Roy Moore is being targeted in this manner alleging immortality, precisely because he is a constitutionalist, conservative, and a Christian. And those of us on the Right aught to be defending him against this timed, transparent political ploy. When it comes to sleazy plays like this you’ve got to follow the politics, not just the money.
-
Well this Southerner is down with Moore. Does Southern Sicily count? South shore Staten Island? I have a Bollo tie and a bitchin’ western hat?
Isn’t it obvious Roy Moore is being targeted in this manner alleging immortality, precisely because he is a constitutionalist, conservative, and a Christian. And those of us on the Right aught to be defending him against this timed, transparent political ploy. When it comes to sleazy plays like this you’ve got to follow the politics, not just the money.
Wouldn't be helpful as a defender if Moore's own defense wasn't so squishy and he didn't send out a small time pizza lawyer who sounds drunk to defend from these allegations?
(http://wizbangpop.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/PIZZA_LAWYER-1.jpg)
-
Wouldn't be helpful as a defender if Moore's own defense wasn't so squishy and he didn't send out a small time pizza lawyer who sounds drunk to defend from these allegations?
That is all the defense you need in Alabama, but I want to give you some credit for not just spouting the approved talking points. When people feel strongly about an issue, there is a tendency to excuse anything that doesn't fit the established narrative. You know a lot of people, even some members of this forum....
Good Lord that Paris has got some huge tators!
:thumbsup3:
wut was I saying?
oh...great post!
-
You could only dream that my jacket would be draped on your floor sister.
@Frank Cannon
You think the polyester content might melt if the sunlight hits it?
-
@Frank Cannon
You think the polyester content might melt if the sunlight hits it?
Frank never steps into the sunlight. He might burst into flames.
-
:threadjack:
Again and again... don't stoop to their level... just the truth, ad hom garbage tossers.
-
2 new members, Demolition and King, have been molested by Frank Cannon, that can't be good for the board and CatherineofAragon pinged me dozens of times to open up her sleazy insults or should I say @CatherineofAragon's, her sleazebag insults. These people intimidate others and continue bullying and people think, ain't that cute. The buck stops here. They band together. Sickening.
-
2 new members, Demolition and King, have been molested by Frank Cannon, that can't be good for the board and CatherineofAragon pinged me dozens of times to open up her sleazy insults or should I say @CatherineofAragon's, her sleazebag insults. These people intimidate others and continue bullying and people think, ain't that cute. The buck stops here. They band together. Sickening.
Calm down, @TomSea .
As a soon-to-be-famous QB recently said, "Those who know, know!"
He was referring to the top brains in the organization and the entire NFL who understand the game, both on and off the field.
She knows, Tom. ^-^
-
2 new members, Demolition and King,
Yup, and where is Demo these days after weeks of spamming the board with strange kook topics and then responding to himself in broken English? As for the other person you brought up, many of us here are fascinated that an open Marxist who parrots "Tax the Rich" is still circulating on a Right Wing site. You don't find that odd Tommy? It's almost as odd as using the term "tosser" on a US political forum.
-
:pop41:
-
Congratulations, WTF - your avatar consists of the single ugliest photo of Hillary Clinton I've ever seen.
-
As for the other person you brought up, many of us here are fascinated that an open Marxist who parrots "Tax the Rich" is still circulating on a Right Wing site. You don't find that odd Tommy?
Not really.
Jazzy is still here gifting himself to us for target practice on a daily basis.
Methinks they love the attention.
... and perhaps the discipline.
-
Not really.
Jazzy is still here gifting himself to us for target practice on a daily basis.
Methinks they love the attention.
... and perhaps the discipline.
I was actually referring to the other poster Tommy mentioned, but don't let me stop you from saying your piece.
-
I was actually referring to the other poster Tommy mentioned, but don't let me stop you from saying your piece.
It's worth mentioning we have more than one or two Leftists on the forum. This isn't an echo chamber.
-
I was actually referring to the other poster Tommy mentioned, but don't let me stop you from saying your piece.
Yes, I know. I was noting the fact we have more than than just one Statist sympathizer and agenda pusher here on this board.
Every family has those twisted and oft-crazed loudmouth cousins or rabid idiotic in-laws nobody likes and only has to put up with at Thanksgiving.
That's why booze sales peak and movie theaters are open this Thursday.
-
It's worth mentioning we have more than one or two Leftists on the forum.
:amen: to that! Quite a few more in fact!
-
Frank never steps into the sunlight. He might burst into flames.
@Cyber Liberty
Because he’s pickled all the way through, I’m guessing?
-
Calm down, @TomSea .
As a soon-to-be-famous QB recently said, "Those who know, know!"
He was referring to the top brains in the organization and the entire NFL who understand the game, both on and off the field.
She knows, Tom. ^-^
Of course everyone knows. These are comments made on an open forum Silly Billy.
BTW, I'm sure that you would love for people to leave Leftists alone on the board. You have a soft spot for them after all.
-
@Cyber Liberty
Because he’s pickled all the way through, I’m guessing?
Of course not. It's because the strip clubs don't open till after dark. Duh.
-
Damn it, Frank! You said you were going to stop molesting people here!
@TomSea, I want you to know that I appreciate you pinging me before you opened up your sleazy-sleazebag insults.
-
Of course not. It's because the strip clubs don't open till after dark. Duh.
Rules for Gentlemen Clubs.
1. 10's at 2am and 2's at 10am.
2. Stripper glitter and vanilla lasts forever.
-
Damn it, Frank! You said you were going to stop molesting people here!
Oh well. You figured out who I actually am. It must have been me using part of my real name in my on line handle.....
(https://media.fox9.com/media.fox9.com/photo/2017/11/16/KABC_s_Leeann_Tweeden___Al_Franken_kisse_0_4524503_ver1.0_640_360.jpg)
-
2. Stripper glitter and vanilla lasts forever.
Tell me about it. My dry cleaning bills are murder.
-
I was actually referring to the other poster Tommy mentioned, but don't let me stop you from saying your piece.
I know why you don't want them here, it keeps you from being the most hated member
-
Of course not. It's because the strip clubs don't open till after dark. Duh.
@Frank Cannon
Google says that 24-hour strip clubs are becoming a thing. There’s one called “Get Punished” in D.C. that sounds like it might be up your alley.
Although, considering the location, the punishment might be forced viewing of female politicians.
-
I know why you don't want them here, it keeps you from being the most hated member
Tell me about it. I worked years to get on everyone's shit list and then these noobs roll in and ruin my plan. I hate it!
BTW, don't tell anyone my attitude. I just found out from @DCPatriot that these posts are private and only read by the boss. If my comments got out to the greater public they may not respect me anymore.
-
@Frank Cannon
Google says that 24-hour strip clubs are becoming a thing. There’s one called “Get Punished” in D.C. that sounds like it might be up your alley.
Although, considering the location, the punishment might be forced viewing of female politicians.
I live in PA. We still have Blue Laws here. Strip clubs are only open from 8PM to 10:45PM four days a week. Closed Friday to Sunday. Also the strippers can only take off their winter coats and jacket. They have to keep their pants and shirt on.
-
I live in PA. We still have Blue Laws here. Strip clubs are only open from 8PM to 10:45PM four days a week. Closed Friday to Sunday. Also the strippers can only take off their winter coats and jacket. They have to keep their pants and shirt on.
Where in PA if you don't mind me asking?
-
Tell me about it. I worked years to get on everyone's shit list and then these noobs roll in and ruin my plan. I hate it!
BTW, don't tell anyone my attitude. I just found out from @DCPatriot that these posts are private and only read by the boss. If my comments got out to the greater public they may not respect me anymore.
Good thing since he outed you as a Mod the other day. I don't think that's supposed to be common knowledge.
-
@Cyber Liberty
Because he’s pickled all the way through, I’m guessing?
No, because if he doesn't get back in his coffin by sunrise he'll turn to dust.
-
Where in PA if you don't mind me asking?
The part where we work for a living.....so not Philthy or Pittsburgh.
-
(http://www.informationliberation.com/files/1510866576122.jpg)
Frank can do better.
-
The part where we work for a living.....so not Philthy or Pittsburgh.
By Bellefont?
-
Good thing since he outed you as a Mod the other day. I don't think that's supposed to be common knowledge.
Well I don't know how much longer I am going to be a Mod. The boss just figured out that I am encouraging the fighting to take place, but I'm deleting serious posts.
-
By Bellefont?
The only people who know there that is are folks that were taking 80 to get out of the state.
-
The only people who know there that is are folks that were taking 80 to get out of the state.
I was thinking of moving to PA from Mass actually.
-
I was thinking of moving to PA from Mass actually.
Well if you picked Bellefonte, you must be in a witness protection program. Trust me. No one will find you there.
-
Of course everyone knows. These are comments made on an open forum Silly Billy.
BTW, I'm sure that you would love for people to leave Leftists alone on the board. You have a soft spot for them after all.
sigh... The years some of us have been with Sinkspur span decades.
Until the Trump era, his posts showed no leftward bent, other than a pragmatic way for a border state to deal with illegal immigration, etc..
IIRC, he also didn't want to see Elian returned. But I may be mistaken.
The point is, that it didn't matter to us that we saw things differently on all matters 'Trump'. As rabid as he sometimes appeared when he got going...I had a sincere open invitation to a backyard steak.
And we've never met.
Of course, the difference is that we shared some historic events along the way...elections, wars, deaths, coups....where we were held the same POV. I never saw Sinkspur as a competing male lion eyeing the pride.
Perhaps, that's why you aren't fond of him, @Frank Cannon ? :shrug:
Ya'll shouldn't be too hard on @mystery-ak ..., nor she on herself, IMHO.
We hold the same endearment for Sinkspur.
Hadn't interacted with Sink whatsoever, in the short time he was here...IIRC, other than to say hello. I didn't even know he was banned until I saw his text.
As far as having a "soft spot"? Not sure that's it. More like "...nobody wants an echo chamber".
So long as the centered and left-leaning POV is presented in an intelligent and non-aggressive manner, hell...why not?
-
So long as the centered and left-leaning POV is presented in an intelligent and non-aggressive manner, hell...why not?
I'm inclined to agree. This place would not be as fun if we didn't have certain people calling me every name in the book.
-
sigh... The years some of us have been with Sinkspur span decades.
Until the Trump era, his posts showed no leftward bent, other than a pragmatic way for a border state to deal with illegal immigration, etc..
IIRC, he also didn't want to see Elian returned. But I may be mistaken.
The point is, that it didn't matter to us that we saw things differently on all matters 'Trump'. As rabid as he sometimes appeared when he got going...I had a sincere open invitation to a backyard steak.
And we've never met.
Of course, the difference is that we shared some historic events along the way...elections, wars, deaths, coups....where we were held the same POV. I never saw Sinkspur as a competing male lion eyeing the pride.
Perhaps, that's why you aren't fond of him, @Frank Cannon ? :shrug:
Ya'll shouldn't be too hard on @mystery-ak ..., nor she on herself, IMHO.
We hold the same endearment for Sinkspur.
Hadn't interacted with Sink whatsoever, in the short time he was here...IIRC, other than to say hello. I didn't even know he was banned until I saw his text.
As far as having a "soft spot"? Not sure that's it. More like "...nobody wants an echo chamber".
So long as the centered and left-leaning POV is presented in an intelligent and non-aggressive manner, hell...why not?
I have no idea what that screed is about. You where cheerleading Tommy for calling me out at my hectoring Demo and Kings for being unusually Leftist. Those are the Leftists I was referring too. I didn't say shit about Sinky.
You have some sort of guilty conscience about something I'm not aware of?
-
I'm inclined to agree. This place would not be as fun if we didn't have certain people calling me every name in the book.
I have no problem with their being here, it's their tendency to resort to circular argument that turns me off and they ALL do that!
-
I'm inclined to agree. This place would not be as fun if we didn't have certain people calling me every name in the book.
I bet you wouldn't like it if I called you Frank.
-
Tell me about it. I worked years to get on everyone's shit list and then these noobs roll in and ruin my plan. I hate it!
BTW, don't tell anyone my attitude. I just found out from @DCPatriot that these posts are private and only read by the boss. If my comments got out to the greater public they may not respect me anymore.
LOL! Got your goat, huh? Didn't mean to...
All I meant was I've 'known' ..."the boss" as a fellow member in a few forums before we get to the present day.
We've seen members come and go. Some that felt like actual family.
She's seen it all. She knows who needs to be watched. :laugh:
-
Well if you picked Bellefonte, you must be in a witness protection program. Trust me. No one will find you there.
Entire family is from there. Love it.
-
Entire family is from there. Love it.
Wow. Whole family there? You guys in the Mafia?
-
I bet you wouldn't like it if I called you Frank.
Let me be frank about it with you...no. And Frank wouldn't like it either, being lumped in with a pouncing Nuclear Kitten.
-
Didn't Sinkspur get caught in some huge lie about impersonating a Catholic Deacon?
-
Let me be frank about it with you...no. And Frank wouldn't like it either, being lumped in with a pouncing Nuclear Kitten.
You probably wouldn't like being lumped in with a bubble headed Sex Kitten either.
-
Didn't Sinkspur get caught in some huge lie about impersonating a Catholic Deacon?
Yeah but that's all in the past now and deserves to be papered over and forgotten! /s
-
Yeah but that's all in the past now and deserves to be papered over and forgotten! /s
LOL. Yeah. Someone should have told Sinky that. One of his first posts back here was him talking about his days in the Catholic church to support his Leftist reasoning.
-
You probably wouldn't like being lumped in with a bubble headed Sex Kitten either.
It wouldn't be so bad if I didn't keep bruising my elbows on those bolt-ons she's sporting.
-
LOL. Yeah. Someone should have told Sinky that. One of his first posts back here was him talking about his days in the Catholic church to support his Leftist reasoning.
I don't think anybody really cared much about that. He always had a way of getting into different kinds of trouble with management. IIRC, he was on the long-term hiatus because he refused to excerpt his articles.
-
I have no problem with their being here, it's their tendency to resort to circular argument that turns me off and they ALL do that!
@Bigun
Relax, buddy. The only circle I was ever interested in is this one:
(http://www.fretjam.com/images/xcircle-of-fifths-simple.gif.pagespeed.ic.M-aL1-Mr6Q.png)