The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: TomSea on November 27, 2017, 07:09:11 pm
-
Marine Colonel Announces He’s Running Against Roy Moore: ‘Hold My Beer’
James LaPorta11.27.17 12:59 PM ET
When retired Marine Col. Lee Busby read it was too late for a write-in candidate for the Alabama senate race, he said, “Hold my beer, we will just see about that.â€
Busby told The Daily Beast on Monday he is launching his long-shot bid to stop Republican nominee Roy Moore from reaching the Senate.
“I have no idea if the allegations against him true or not, but I don’t see anything within his experience as a judge that qualifies him for the job.â€
Read more at: https://www.thedailybeast.com/marine-col-lee-busby-announces-hes-running-against-roy-moore (https://www.thedailybeast.com/marine-col-lee-busby-announces-hes-running-against-roy-moore)
-
Meanwhile in Dothan...
(https://i.imgflip.com/1n6rbc.jpg)
-
At least Busby has something that Moore doesn't have.. Character.
-
At least Busby has something that Moore doesn't have.. Character.
You are wrong about that...The Judge is a character.
-
and what qualifies the Col any more then Moore?
-
and what qualifies the Col any more then Moore?
At this point, what difference does it make?
-
At this point, what difference does it make?
The obvious Hillary quote comes to mind, but The Smiths seemed to fit as well....
What Difference Does It Make
All men have secrets and here is mine so let it be known
For we have been through hell and high tide
I think I can rely on you
And yet you start to recoil
Heavy words are so lightly thrown
But still I'd leap in front of a flying bullet for you
So what difference does it make?
So what difference does it make?
It makes none, but now you have gone
And you must be looking very old tonight
The devil will find work for idle hands to do
I stole and I lied, and why? because you asked me to
But now you make me feel so ashamed
Because I've only got two hands
Well, I'm still fond of you
-
Saw this comment over at Instapundit.
(https://c.disquscdn.com/uploads/users/17408/6280/avatar92.jpg?1511816102)Scott Daly • 35 minutes ago
Defense consultant and investment banker - in other words, Swamp Dependent.
Reply• Share ›
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/281836/#respond
-
Seems like a pretty real guy. Not some phony like Moore.
-
Two drinks and every man's a hero.
-
and what qualifies the Col any more then Moore?
@driftdiver
Well, the obvious answer is that the Colonel isn’t a child sex abuser. Definitely a plus.
-
@driftdiver
Well, the obvious answer is that the Colonel isn’t a child sex abuser. Definitely a plus.
And you have proof of that how?
And you have proof that Roy Moore is, how?
-
And you have proof of that how?
And you have proof that Roy Moore is, how?
@To-Whose-Benefit?
You haven’t been paying attention.
-
@To-Whose-Benefit?
You haven’t been paying attention.
@CatherineofAragon
Got plenty of attention. Ain't got Proof.
If Moore's guilty of a chargeable crime, and the proof exists to indict him, then drag him in.
Otherwise, quit feeding the Dems fantasies.
-
and what qualifies the Col any more then Moore?
Good question.
Moore's a judge: his JOB is to know the law, day in, day out.
Congress MAKES Laws, day in, day out.
How much of the Cols' time has been spent with his dance card brim filled up with a similar amount of The Law?
-
@CatherineofAragon
Got plenty of attention. Ain't got Proof.
If Moore's guilty of a chargeable crime, and the proof exists to indict him, then drag him in.
Otherwise, quit feeding the Dems fantasies.
@To-Whose-Benefit?
Look, you’ve put on your blinders and I’m not going to argue with you because at this point Moore could admit to the charges and some would still want him in office. It’s going to be really interesting when he sponsors Bring Your Daughter To Work Day in the Senate, lol.
-
Good question.
Moore's a judge: his JOB is to know the law, day in, day out.
Congress MAKES Laws, day in, day out.
How much of the Cols' time has been spent with his dance card brim filled up with a similar amount of The Law?
@To-Whose-Benefit?
Probably less than Moore’s dance card brim, whatever that is, was filled with hanging in mall corners.
-
@To-Whose-Benefit?
Look, you’ve put on your blinders and I’m not going to argue with you because at this point Moore could admit to the charges and some would still want him in office. It’s going to be really interesting when he sponsors Bring Your Daughter To Work Day in the Senate, lol.
Your not going to argue with me BECAUSE you haven't provided/can't provide any of the PROOF I asked for, but I'M the one with Blinders ON?
-
Good question.
Moore's a judge: his JOB is to know the law, day in, day out.
Moore's not a judge, he's a mockery of one. He was removed from office twice by the State of Alabama for violating his oath of office. I can only hope the citizens of Alabama are patriotic enough to refuse to give him a third chance to violate his oath.
-
Your not going to argue with me BECAUSE you haven't provided/can't provide any of the PROOF I asked for, but I'M the one with Blinders ON?
@To-Whose-Benefit?
Why don’t you calm down and stop yelling.
-
Your not going to argue with me BECAUSE you haven't provided/can't provide any of the PROOF I asked for, but I'M the one with Blinders ON?
There is no presumption of innocence attached to a candidate's run for political office. The voters are being asked to exercise their common sense, not render a legal verdict. Do you believe Roy Moore or his accusers? Trust your gut, trust your instincts. There will be no "proof" of the sort you demand prior to the election. Nevertheless, it is up to the people of Alabama to enable or deny the political ambitions of a lawless hypocrite.
-
@To-Whose-Benefit?
Why don’t you calm down and stop yelling.
At least you're in good and well respected company here, with Jazzy taking your side.
-
I hear from anonymous unnamed sources that this Colonel is into middle aged goats. He may be a better fit for the voters of Alabama.
-
At least you're in good and well respected company here, with Jazzy taking your side.
@To-Whose-Benefit?
Says the guy defending a sexual deviant.
You don’t understand, I don’t post according to who’s “on my side†or to win a popularity contest. If it’s right, it doesn’t matter who recognizes it as such.
That’s something conservatives have lost sight of in the rush to embrace stupid tribalism.
-
There is no presumption of innocence attached to a candidate's run for political office. The voters are being asked to exercise their common sense, not render a legal verdict. Do you believe Roy Moore or his accusers? Trust your gut, trust your instincts. There will be no "proof" of the sort you demand prior to the election. Nevertheless, it is up to the people of Alabama to enable or deny the political ambitions of a lawless hypocrite.
@Jazzhead, I agree with everything you said here, up to "lawless hypocrite". My gut tells me that's not true.
-
@driftdiver
Well, the obvious answer is that the Colonel isn’t a child sex abuser. Definitely a plus.
@CatherineofAragon
Well actually you don't know that now do you.
-
@To-Whose-Benefit?
Says the guy defending a sexual deviant.
You don’t understand, I don’t post according to who’s “on my side†or to win a popularity contest. If it’s right, it doesn’t matter who recognizes it as such.
That’s something conservatives have lost sight of in the rush to embrace stupid tribalism.
Where's the $27K of tax payer hush money to a victim? (Conyers)
Where's the pics of him groping a sleeping woman's breasts? (Franken)
Proof?
-
At least you're in good and well respected company here, with Jazzy taking your side.
@To-Whose-Benefit?
Don't often see the word 'respected' used in that manner.
-
@CatherineofAragon
Well actually you don't know that now do you.
True, we don't know whether the Colonel is a child sex abuser. But we DO know that multiple women have come forward on the record to recount instances of inappropriate sexual behavior when they were teenagers and Moore was an officer of the court.
-
@Jazzhead, I agree with everything you said here, up to "lawless hypocrite". My gut tells me that's not true.
Roy Moore's entire life is a testimony against the lie!
-
True, we don't know whether the Colonel is a child sex abuser. But we DO know that multiple women have come forward on the record to recount instances of inappropriate sexual behavior when they were teenagers and Moore was an officer of the court.
@Jazzhead
You use all kinds of trigger words related to Moore, deviant, indefensible, sexual abuse and so on.
All we know is there are 40 yr old allegations that Moore, as a man in his mid 30's, chased girls who were 16-17 years old. We have no proof, in fact we have proof that at least one of these women had reason to seek revenge upon Moore and that many or her statements don't hold up to scrutiny.
Is a 35yr old man dating a 16 year old normal? no Is it proper? no Is it illegal? again no Is it sexual abuse? no Is it deviant? No
Good thing for you Moore isn't like James Woods or you would be in court by now for slander.
-
@driftdiver
Well, the obvious answer is that the Colonel isn’t a child sex abuser. Definitely a plus.
@CatherineofAragon
And he's honest enough to admit he doesn't know if the charges against Moore are true. Another plus.
-
Roy Moore's entire life is a testimony against the lie!
That may be true. I'm glad I don't have to make that decision.
-
@Jazzhead, I agree with everything you said here, up to "lawless hypocrite". My gut tells me that's not true.
I understand. My primary objection to Roy Moore is his violation of his oath of office on two occasions. That's where the "lawless" charge comes from. To me, adherence to the rule of law is what distinguishes us a Constitutional Republic.
-
Moore's not a judge, he's a mockery of one. He was removed from office twice by the State of Alabama for violating his oath of office. I can only hope the citizens of Alabama are patriotic enough to refuse to give him a third chance to violate his oath.
Anyone willing, no make that eager, to ruin a man reputation and career based on 40 year
old allegations make without a shred of evidence is disqualified from any discussion on the
law.
Any thinking person without a agenda sees this smear Roy Moore job for what it is. Gutter
electioneering by the establishment desperate to keep power.
-
@Jazzhead
You use all kinds of trigger words related to Moore, deviant, indefensible, sexual abuse and so on.
All we know is there are 40 yr old allegations that Moore, as a man in his mid 30's, chased girls who were 16-17 years old. We have no proof, in fact we have proof that at least one of these women had reason to seek revenge upon Moore and that many or her statements don't hold up to scrutiny.
Use your common sense to evaluate the credibility of the charges, and whether, if true, they matter respecting his fitness for office.
For me, Moore is unfit for office because he's already violated his oath of office on two occasions, effectively thumbing his nose at the Constitution. That's not the sort of man that deserves election to the Senate - whether or not he trolled for teenagers at the mall.
-
Anyone willing, no make that eager, to ruin a man reputation and career based on 40 year
old allegations make without a shred of evidence is disqualified from any discussion on the
law.
Any thinking person without a agenda sees this smear Roy Moore job for what it is. Gutter
electioneering by the establishment desperate to keep power.
I don't want to ruin his career. But I sure as hell don't want him in the Senate. Some may reach that conclusion based on the allegations of his sexual misconduct from many years ago. Others will reach that conclusion on the basis of his lawless conduct as a judge.
-
Anyone willing, no make that eager, to ruin a man reputation and career based on 40 year
old allegations make without a shred of evidence is disqualified from any discussion on the
law.
Any thinking person without a agenda sees this smear Roy Moore job for what it is. Gutter
electioneering by the establishment desperate to keep power.
And anyone who equates what Roy Moore did as a Judge with violating his oath of office is either astoundingly stupid or has a very leftist agenda!
-
I understand. My primary objection to Roy Moore is his violation of his oath of office on two occasions. That's where the "lawless" charge comes from. To me, adherence to the rule of law is what distinguishes us a Constitutional Republic.
When government laws run afoul of G*ds laws then one has to choose. G*ds law or
mans law? Same sex marriage is immoral, evil, an abomination. People of faith will never
recognize same sex marriage as marriage. And abortion is murder unless it is done to
safe the life of the mother.
-
@To-Whose-Benefit?
Don't often see the word 'respected' used in that manner.
Well, I was asked to stop shouting, so, . . .
888high58888
-
When government laws run afoul of G*ds laws then one has to choose. G*ds law or
mans law? Same sex marriage is immoral, evil, an abomination. People of faith will never
recognize same sex marriage as marriage. And abortion is murder unless it is done to
safe the life of the mother.
And I do believe that Judge Moore was a Judge in the STATE of Alabama and was acting as an advocate for his STATE against federal overreaches in every instance! In other words, he was actually UPHOLDING his oath of office!
-
@To-Whose-Benefit?
That’s something conservatives have lost sight of in the rush to embrace stupid tribalism.
Its those dastardly nevertrumpers I tell ya. :silly:
-
@CatherineofAragon
And he's honest enough to admit he doesn't know if the charges against Moore are true. Another plus.
@skeeter
Neither did I when the accusations came out. I decided to wait for more information, and when it came out, I made my decision.
-
@CatherineofAragon
Well actually you don't know that now do you.
@driftdiver
I’m pretty confident that he is.
-
@skeeter
Neither did I when the accusations came out. I decided to wait for more information, and when it came out, I made my decision.
But this guy hasn't reached the same conclusion as you have. He says he doesn't know. Doesn't that indicate that he's morally defective?
-
Yes, I considered the source and what Bannon/Trumpbart have invested in Judge Moore.
Never Trump Plant in Alabama: ‘Write In’ Against Conservative Roy Moore Attended Liberal Dem Doug Jones Fundraiser
by Sean Moran27 Nov 2017
Busby, a retired Marine colonel and former aide to White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, announced on Monday that he will launch a last-minute write-in campaign against Republican nominee Alabama Judge Roy Moore and Democrat Doug Jones.
Busby admitted that he attended a fundraiser for Doug Jones and even voted for Ohio governor and infamous public eater John Kasich in 2016 Republican presidential primary.
Lee Busby argued that the allegations of sexual misconduct against Roy Moore created an opening for an establishment, centrist candidate to launch a third-party run for the December 12 Alabama Senate race.
<..snip..>
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/27/never-trump-plant-in-alabama-write-in-against-conservative-roy-moore-attended-liberal-dem-doug-jones-fundraiser/ (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/27/never-trump-plant-in-alabama-write-in-against-conservative-roy-moore-attended-liberal-dem-doug-jones-fundraiser/)
-
But this guy hasn't reached the same conclusion as you have. He says he doesn't know. Doesn't that indicate that he's morally defective?
I think you have a point there @skeeter.
-
Yes, I considered the source and what Bannon/Trumpbart have invested in Judge Moore.
A nevertrumper no wonder @CatherineofAragon likes him. Good info, thx.
-
Yes, I considered the source and what Bannon/Trumpbart have invested in Judge Moore.
Never Trump Plant in Alabama: ‘Write In’ Against Conservative Roy Moore Attended Liberal Dem Doug Jones Fundraiser
by Sean Moran27 Nov 2017
Busby, a retired Marine colonel and former aide to White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, announced on Monday that he will launch a last-minute write-in campaign against Republican nominee Alabama Judge Roy Moore and Democrat Doug Jones.
Busby admitted that he attended a fundraiser for Doug Jones and even voted for Ohio governor and infamous public eater John Kasich in 2016 Republican presidential primary.
Lee Busby argued that the allegations of sexual misconduct against Roy Moore created an opening for an establishment, centrist candidate to launch a third-party run for the December 12 Alabama Senate race.
<..snip..>
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/27/never-trump-plant-in-alabama-write-in-against-conservative-roy-moore-attended-liberal-dem-doug-jones-fundraiser/ (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/27/never-trump-plant-in-alabama-write-in-against-conservative-roy-moore-attended-liberal-dem-doug-jones-fundraiser/)
Good find! :thumbsup2:
I suspect anyone who chooses the write-in option wasn't ever a Moore supporter.
-
Good find! :thumbsup2:
I suspect anyone who chooses the write-in option wasn't ever a Moore supporter.
Why would you suspect that?
-
Yes, I considered the source and what Bannon/Trumpbart have invested in Judge Moore.
Never Trump Plant in Alabama: ‘Write In’ Against Conservative Roy Moore Attended Liberal Dem Doug Jones Fundraiser
by Sean Moran27 Nov 2017
Busby, a retired Marine colonel and former aide to White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, announced on Monday that he will launch a last-minute write-in campaign against Republican nominee Alabama Judge Roy Moore and Democrat Doug Jones.
Busby admitted that he attended a fundraiser for Doug Jones and even voted for Ohio governor and infamous public eater John Kasich in 2016 Republican presidential primary.
Lee Busby argued that the allegations of sexual misconduct against Roy Moore created an opening for an establishment, centrist candidate to launch a third-party run for the December 12 Alabama Senate race.
<..snip..>
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/27/never-trump-plant-in-alabama-write-in-against-conservative-roy-moore-attended-liberal-dem-doug-jones-fundraiser/ (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/11/27/never-trump-plant-in-alabama-write-in-against-conservative-roy-moore-attended-liberal-dem-doug-jones-fundraiser/)
AH, HAH HAHAHAHAHAHAH!
GASP, WHEEZE, COUGH
AHAHAHAHAHAH!
Great Find @corbe
-
Use your common sense to evaluate the credibility of the charges, and whether, if true, they matter respecting his fitness for office.
For me, Moore is unfit for office because he's already violated his oath of office on two occasions, effectively thumbing his nose at the Constitution. That's not the sort of man that deserves election to the Senate - whether or not he trolled for teenagers at the mall.
@Jazzhead
You've been challenged on that statement many times and have never justified it.
No, I think you condemn him because he's a Christian. Everything else is just window dressing.
-
Where's the $27K of tax payer hush money to a victim? (Conyers)
Where's the pics of him groping a sleeping woman's breasts? (Franken)
Proof?
@To-Whose-Benefit?
You’re demanding that Moore be judged according to criminal standards outside of court. It doesn’t work that way, no matter how often it’s repeated.
In everyday life you weigh information and make your decision. When it comes to voting, you’re a jury of one. The issue is not whether Moore will be locked up; it’s whether he’ll attain higher office (to which he is not entitled). And as always, voters decide without tangible proof because tangible proof is not applicable here.
Similar decisions were made regarding Clinton’s women, aside from Lewinsky, and Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey and others. People used their powers of reasoning without, again, demanding legal standards for non-legal issues.
I don’t know if you’ve read the original Post article. It was scrupulously researched and cross- confirmed down to the last detail. It’s pretty much airtight, IMO... and more importantly, according to conservatives who have legal backgrounds. And then you have the corroboration of family members, friends, Moore’s former co-workers, etc., etc.
And that’s not all. You have Moore’s wife running around Facebook spreading fake information she was forced to delete. And James O’Keefe trying to discredit the victims and the story by running a pathetic scam attempt. This is not how innocent people and their defenders act.
Lastly, there’s Moore with his BS threats to sue.
Initially he was going to sue the Post. He backed off.
Then he was going to sue AL. com, the state media company. They told him to bring it, and that he should have his materials ready for discovery. Not surprisingly, he dropped that, too.
He’s been yapping on Twitter about wanting to see the yearbook. As David French said, he could sue for expedited discovery and see the yearbook, but he won’t do that.
And after all of this, I’m supposed to say, yeah, looks like he’s innocent, all right. And everyone else is lying and has managed to maintain a grand, extensive, airtight conspiracy.
Sure.
-
AH, HAH HAHAHAHAHAHAH!
GASP, WHEEZE, COUGH
AHAHAHAHAHAH!
Great Find @corbe
Which has zero to do with Moore’s innocence or guilt, no matter how big and bold your font is, or how many exclamation marks you use.
-
@driftdiver
I’m pretty confident that he is.
@CatherineofAragon
I was too until I found out at least one of the women had her divorce case seen in front of the Judge, and she lost. Then there's the yearbook thats been forged and the restaurant lie.
Do I think he liked 16-17 yr old girls as a35 yr old man. Probably, he's admitted to that. Thats not illegal and considering it happened 40 years ago not terribly unusual. Hell if he were a musician nobody would even bat an eye.
Has he raped, sexually harrassed, or done something illegal. I doubt it.
-
Which has zero to do with Moore’s innocence or guilt, no matter how big and bold your font is, or how many exclamation marks you use.
Uh oh, I think I'm about to be outed at a nevertrump plant. (https://i.imgur.com/6zzqDdi.gif)
:silly: :silly: :silly:
-
Which has zero to do with Moore’s innocence or guilt, no matter how big and bold your font is, or how many exclamation marks you use.
I will leave the decision in the hands of my fellow American Citizens and Citizens of the State of Alabama to make.
No matter how deep the Never Trump runs in others.
-
Which has zero to do with Moore’s innocence or guilt, no matter how big and bold your font is, or how many exclamation marks you use.
No, it's about accepting the operative precedent that political character assassination by unsubstantiated allegations is how the Oligarchy negates the will of the people and selects their rulers for them under the guise of 'free elections'.
Enjoy your future.
-
Uh oh, I think I'm about to be outed at a nevertrump plant. (https://i.imgur.com/6zzqDdi.gif)
:silly: :silly: :silly:
@Cripplecreek
Dude, the line forms right here. I’ve already been outed as having always voted for Democrats, lol.
-
I will leave the decision in the hands of my fellow American Citizens and Citizens of the State of Alabama to make.
No matter how deep the Never Trump runs in others.
@To-Whose-Benefit?
LOL
I notice you didn’t respond to my other post to you. That’s okay, I get it.
-
@CatherineofAragon
I was too until I found out at least one of the women had her divorce case seen in front of the Judge, and she lost. Then there's the yearbook thats been forged and the restaurant lie.
Do I think he liked 16-17 yr old girls as a35 yr old man. Probably, he's admitted to that. Thats not illegal and considering it happened 40 years ago not terribly unusual. Hell if he were a musician nobody would even bat an eye.
Has he raped, sexually harrassed, or done something illegal. I doubt it.
Wasn't there an American Crooner by the name of Elvis Something or Other some years back who in some circles is still singing backup in the Lord's own heavenly choir?
-
@To-Whose-Benefit?
LOL
I notice you didn’t respond to my other post to you. That’s okay, I get it.
Yeah. And I notice you took your sweet time combing the archives for your collection of "So There's" too.
-
Where does the line form? I was accused of voting for hellary last week on this very Forum.
-
@To-Whose-Benefit?
You’re demanding that Moore be judged according to criminal standards outside of court. It doesn’t work that way, no matter how often it’s repeated.
In everyday life you weigh information and make your decision. When it comes to voting, you’re a jury of one. The issue is not whether Moore will be locked up; it’s whether he’ll attain higher office (to which he is not entitled). And as always, voters decide without tangible proof because tangible proof is not applicable here.
Similar decisions were made regarding Clinton’s women, aside from Lewinsky, and Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey and others. People used their powers of reasoning without, again, demanding legal standards for non-legal issues.
I don’t know if you’ve read the original Post article. It was scrupulously researched and cross- confirmed down to the last detail. It’s pretty much airtight, IMO... and more importantly, according to conservatives who have legal backgrounds. And then you have the corroboration of family members, friends, Moore’s former co-workers, etc., etc.
And that’s not all. You have Moore’s wife running around Facebook spreading fake information she was forced to delete. And James O’Keefe trying to discredit the victims and the story by running a pathetic scam attempt. This is not how innocent people and their defenders act.
Lastly, there’s Moore with his BS threats to sue.
Initially he was going to sue the Post. He backed off.
Then he was going to sue AL. com, the state media company. They told him to bring it, and that he should have his materials ready for discovery. Not surprisingly, he dropped that, too.
He’s been yapping on Twitter about wanting to see the yearbook. As David French said, he could sue for expedited discovery and see the yearbook, but he won’t do that.
And after all of this, I’m supposed to say, yeah, looks like he’s innocent, all right. And everyone else is lying and has managed to maintain a grand, extensive, airtight conspiracy.
Sure.
Well said and persuasive, CofA!
It's time for those who support Roy Moore to be honest about it - the veracity of the charges is irrelevant to them. The objective is to defeat the Democrat. "He may be a pervert, but he's our pervert".
I'd like to see a Republican in the Senate, too. That's why early on I and so many others urged Moore to step down. But Moore couldn't be persuaded, and now it's him or Doug Jones.
That means it will be Doug Jones. Don't like it? Then put the blame squarely where it belongs - on Roy Moore.
-
Where does the line form? I was accused of voting for hellary last week on this very Forum.
@corbe
I think you're mistaken. I think you were accused of wanting to sleep with Hillary, not voting for her.
but i could be wrong.
-
Wasn't there an American Crooner by the name of Elvis Something or Other some years back who in some circles is still singing backup in the Lord's own heavenly choir?
This guy? @To-Whose-Benefit?
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0aAGP3ty_A#)
-
No, it's about accepting the operative precedent that political character assassination by unsubstantiated allegations is how the Oligarchy negates the will of the people and selects their rulers for them under the guise of 'free elections'.
Enjoy your future.
Oh stop it. Folks aren't children; they can and will decide for themselves. And folks can and will spot a creep.
-
This guy? @To-Whose-Benefit?
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0aAGP3ty_A#)
Before my time. Had an earlier Elvis in mind.
-
Which has zero to do with Moore’s innocence or guilt, no matter how big and bold your font is, or how many exclamation marks you use.
Then drag him in and indict him.
Or stop carrying the Democrats water.
-
That means it will be Doug Jones. Don't like it? Then put the blame squarely where it belongs - on Roy Moore.
I will blame backstabbers and those who inadvertently carry water for the enemy.
-
Oh stop it. Folks aren't children; they can and will decide for themselves. And folks can and will spot a creep.
Well then, we should make sure to levy all kinds of sick, unsubstantiated charges to paint you a deviant perverted creep too.
Maybe we work to ensure you lose your job and get your name on a list that requires you to notify the Authorities of your whereabouts and destroy any chance for you to be seen as anything but a sicko pervert that should be eschewed by the entirety of society and the civilized world.
After all, it's the seriousness of the charge that matters. Not the substance thereof.
Thanks for the tools and the precedent.
-
Well then, we should make sure to levy all kinds of sick, unsubstantiated charges to paint you a deviant perverted creep too.
Maybe we work to ensure you lose your job and get your name on a list that requires you to notify the Authorities of your whereabouts and destroy any chance for you to be seen as anything but a sicko pervert that should be eschewed by the entirety of society and the civilized world.
After all, it's the seriousness of the charge that matters. Not the substance thereof.
Thanks for the tools and the precedent.
Awww Shucks.
And this after I've been excoriated for laughing out loud in bold face, all caps, and large font.
Taught Me my manners it did. Yessir!
AH HAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
:thumbsup3:
-
@Jazzhead
You've been challenged on that statement many times and have never justified it.
No, I think you condemn him because he's a Christian. Everything else is just window dressing.
I don't "condemn" him because he's a Christian. You've been huffing the same paint that INVAR has, it appears.
The State of Alabama removed him as a sitting judge on two occasions for refusing to follow the law. Does the State of Alabama condemn him for his Christianity, too?
Adherence to the rule of law is critical to the success of a Constitutional republic. While you may think that religious faith means a free pass from following laws you don't like, the stakes are considerably higher for a judge - an officer of the court - than they are from some random baker or wedding photographer. A judge swears an oath of fidelity to the Constitution, to the faithful execution of the laws. That's a serious matter, and Moore's religious hucksterism was rightly seen by Alabama as an affront to the community and the Constitution's guarantee of the law's equal protection.
-
The State of Alabama removed him as a sitting judge on two occasions for refusing to follow the law.
Can you remind us what law (the one passed by the legislature or the one written in the constitution) Moore violated again?
-
Can you remind us what law (the one passed by the legislature or the one written in the constitution) Moore violated again?
Don't be cute. Use your google skills.
-
Don't be cute. Use your google skills.
Toss out the charge and then invite others to disprove it.
Neatly summarizing this entire farce.
-
Don't be cute. Use your google skills.
You are doing a very good job of NOT ANSWERING MY QUESTION. I'll take that as a "No, he did not violate any law" until you provide me with an answer.
-
and what qualifies the Col any more then Moore?
Not a dam thing.
And the article didn't say what kind of 'business' he has been running. I don't care enough about him to look it up.
But he isn't the only soldier running.
After graduating from West Point in 1969, Moore served in Germany as a lieutenant and then he was promoted to captain and given command of the 188th Military Police Company in Vietnam in 1971.
That's from an article I posting about fragging towards the end of the Viet Nam war.
-
I don't "condemn" him because he's a Christian. You've been huffing the same paint that INVAR has, it appears.
The State of Alabama removed him as a sitting judge on two occasions for refusing to follow the law. Does the State of Alabama condemn him for his Christianity, too?
Adherence to the rule of law is critical to the success of a Constitutional republic.
There you go again with your bullsh*t claims as to what the law really is. You let idiot Kook judges change it at whim, and then demand we all obey their newly discovered crapfest of "law."
No. Putting things back to normal require us to discard and dismiss all this made up baloney about what the law means.
No, the 14th amendment does not mean homosexuals have a right to hump each other. It does not mean women can murder their babies. It does not mean that States must prohibit all endorsement of religion. It does not make "anchor babies" into US Citizens.
All of these things represent misinterpretations of law. They do not represent proper law, they represent a false "law." They are at odds with the fundamental principles governing our nation, and they must be rebuked.
-
There you go again with your bullsh*t claims as to what the law really is....
No, the 14th amendment does not mean homosexuals have a right to hump each other. It does not mean women can murder their babies. It does not mean that States must prohibit all endorsement of religion. It does not make "anchor babies" into US Citizens...
They are at odds with the fundamental principles governing our nation, and they must be rebuked.
Likewise those who PUSH that bullshit as legitimate and legal.
They too should be rebuked at every turn. For they are nothing more than tyrants and supporters of tyranny themselves.
No matter how clever they think they are in disguising what they really are.
-
There you go again with your bullsh*t claims as to what the law really is. You let idiot Kook judges change it at whim, and then demand we all obey their newly discovered crapfest of "law."
I'm not letting "idiot kook judges" do anything. It was the State of Alabama that removed Moore on two occasions for violating his oath of office by refusing to follow the law.
You and Roy Moore each seem to think you're entitled to be laws unto yourselves. That's not how it works in a Constitutional republic.
So kiss my ass with your nihilist charge regarding my "bullsh1t claims". The State of Alabama knows that Roy Moore is a lawless hypocrite.
-
Yeah. And I notice you took your sweet time combing the archives for your collection of "So There's" too.
@To-Whose-Benefit?
I was typing on my phone, drinking coffee, and taking care of a couple of things. You can do better than that.
Still no response, then?
-
Likewise those who PUSH that bullshit as legitimate and legal.
They too should be rebuked at every turn. For they are nothing more than tyrants and supporters of tyranny themselves.
Exactly.
The tyranny is from those who take it upon themselves to thrust upon the public false law based on their own personal whim and contrary to the consent of the governed.
They and their false law are entitled to no respect whatsoever. Indeed, it is our duty to fight them in any manner possible.
-
Where does the line form? I was accused of voting for hellary last week on this very Forum.
@corbe
Over here, and bring wine!
-
Well said and persuasive, CofA!
It's time for those who support Roy Moore to be honest about it - the veracity of the charges is irrelevant to them. The objective is to defeat the Democrat. "He may be a pervert, but he's our pervert".
I'd like to see a Republican in the Senate, too. That's why early on I and so many others urged Moore to step down. But Moore couldn't be persuaded, and now it's him or Doug Jones.
That means it will be Doug Jones. Don't like it? Then put the blame squarely where it belongs - on Roy Moore.
@Jazzhead
Thanks, and I agree.
-
@To-Whose-Benefit?
I was typing on my phone, drinking coffee, and taking care of a couple of things. You can do better than that.
Still no response, then?
I was busy scanning other threads.
All the Proof you've posted is Circumstantial Evidence which an honest judge would instruct the jury to disregard in their deliberations.
-
They and their false law are entitled to no respect whatsoever. Indeed, it is our duty to fight them in any manner possible.
Yes, but only if you reject the rule of law and prefer a true tyranny - akin to a Christian form of sharia law - to that of a Constitutional republic.
We are nation of laws, not of men - and certainly not of clerics and self-appointed religious police.
-
Awww Shucks.
And this after I've been excoriated for laughing out loud in bold face, all caps, and large font.
Taught Me my manners it did. Yessir!
AH HAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
:thumbsup3:
@To-Whose-Benefit?
Well, you’ve whined about it twice, so my advice would be to try and shrug it off.
Still no response to my earlier post?
-
Yes, but only if you reject the rule of law and prefer a true tyranny - akin to a Christian form of sharia law - to that of a Constitutional republic.
We are nation of laws, not of men - and certainly not of clerics and self-appointed religious police.
You just can't help but go over the top, can you.
All you are doing is reinforcing the suspicion many here have, myself included, that for all the moralizing and finger wagging you're real problem with Moore is his outspoken Christianity.
-
I'm not letting "idiot kook judges" do anything. It was the State of Alabama that removed Moore on two occasions for violating his oath of office by refusing to follow the law.
They were violating their oath by lending credence to fake, made up crap which Idiot Federal Judges call "law." Moore was the only one adhering to his oath of office.
Defiance of Idiot/Lying federal judges is duty to country.
You and Roy Moore each seem to think you're entitled to be laws unto yourselves. That's not how it works in a Constitutional republic.
I am tired of hearing you talk about how a Constitutional Republic is supposed to work when you support the making up of fake and ridiculous claims of legislative intent in the law. Refusing to adhere to legislative intent is what undermines the rule of law.
The Congress of 1868 did *NOT* pass a "homosexual intercourse" law. They did not pass a "murder your baby" law. They did not pass a "ban Christianity from State Government" law.
All of these things are a deliberate misreading of the intent of the Congress of 1868. Their intent was to secure the rights of freed slaves, and prohibiting states from infringing upon these newly acquired rights.
AND NOTHING ELSE!!!!!
-
I was busy scanning other threads.
All the Proof you've posted is Circumstantial Evidence which an honest judge would instruct the jury to disregard in their deliberations.
@To-Whose-Benefit?
Well, you’re not busy now, apparently. You want to address it a little more specifically than plugging your ears, covering your eyes, and ignoring?
-
Yes, but only if you reject the rule of law and prefer a true tyranny - akin to a Christian form of sharia law - to that of a Constitutional republic.
The only tyranny of which we have suffered is from Federal Judges exceeding the bounds of their authority in making utterly ridiculous and nonsensical claims as to legislative intent.
I have read the debates on the 14th amendment. You will find no mention of homosexuals in them. You will find no mention of women being allowed to kill their babies in them. You will find no mention of banning the Christian religion in the states in those debates. You *WILL* find a discussion about whether or not "anchor babies" would be American Citizens, but in that discussion you will discover the Chief Architect of the law, (John Bingham) assures everyone that this will not happen.
Judges make up false law, precisely to get around legislative intent that does not speak to the result they want. The nation has no obligation to respect this fake law, and indeed a duty to not only oppose it, but to forcefully punish anyone who would usurp the authority of the legislative branch for their own personal preferences.
We are nation of laws, not of men - and certainly not of clerics and self-appointed religious police.
If you believed that, you would not advocate Judges making up fake "interpretations" of law, and then shoving them down our throats against our will.
You are on the side of the self-appointed religious police. You are on the side of tyrant judges.
-
@To-Whose-Benefit?
Well, you’re not busy now, apparently. You want to address it a little more specifically than plugging your ears, covering your eyes, and ignoring?
I just did address it. It's Circumstantial. NOT PROOF.
-
You are on the side of the self-appointed religious police. You are on the side of tyrant judges.
Yes. The majority on this board know that. Jazzy is not fooling anyone here like he thinks he is.
But we appreciate his willingness to be our target practice.
-
I just did address it. It's Circumstantial. NOT PROOF.
@To-Whose-Benefit?
Then you can’t be taken seriously.
-
@To-Whose-Benefit?
Then you can’t be taken seriously.
You pile up your Proof that you presented to me and drag it into Court, and see just how fast you and your proof get tossed out on your ear.
-
You pile up your Proof that you presented to me and drag it into Court, and see just how fast you and your proof get tossed out on your ear.
@To-Whose-Benefit?
Its not about proof its about FEEEELLLINGS
-
The only tyranny of which we have suffered is from Federal Judges exceeding the bounds of their authority in making utterly ridiculous and nonsensical claims as to legislative intent.
I have read the debates on the 14th amendment. You will find no mention of homosexuals in them. You will find no mention of women being allowed to kill their babies in them. You will find no mention of banning the Christian religion in the states in those debates. You *WILL* find a discussion about whether or not "anchor babies" would be American Citizens, but in that discussion you will discover the Chief Architect of the law, (John Bingham) assures everyone that this will not happen.
Judges make up false law, precisely to get around legislative intent that does not speak to the result they want. The nation has no obligation to respect this fake law, and indeed a duty to not only oppose it, but to forcefully punish anyone who would usurp the authority of the legislative branch for their own personal preferences.
If you believed that, you would not advocate Judges making up fake "interpretations" of law, and then shoving them down our throats against our will.
You are on the side of the self-appointed religious police. You are on the side of tyrant judges.
Bullshit. Neither you nor any judge is a king. If a judge makes a "kook" decision, the solution (which has been exercised many times over the years by Congress) is to pass a law to clarify or override that decision. Sure, judges have expanded the reach of the 14th amendment. But the mechanism exists under the law to rein in or modify that reach. The fact that such expansion has been allowed to stand means that our Constitutional system is working as intended - the people are in favor of such expansion. Even if you turn purple in frustration - sorry, but that's just how things are supposed to work.
The bottom line is we are a nation of laws, not of men. We are a Constitutional republic and as such the opinions of self-appointed religious foamers count for little.
-
@To-Whose-Benefit?
Its not about proof its about FEEEELLLINGS
Correct. Proof is not a requirement to vote for or against Roy Moore. The voters are empowered to use their common sense and best judgment, and are morally obligated to take their responsibility seriously. Beyond that, a decision based on "feelings" is perfectly legitimate. This may be a matter of he-said, she-said (and she-said and she-said and she-said), but that is a perfectly legitimate ground upon which to place one's vote.
-
Correct. Proof is not a requirement to vote for or against Roy Moore. The voters are empowered to use their common sense and best judgment, and are morally obligated to take their responsibility seriously. Beyond that, a decision based on "feelings" is perfectly legitimate. This may be a matter of he-said, she-said (and she-said and she-said and she-said), but that is a perfectly legitimate ground upon which to place one's vote.
@Jazzhead
you talking about morals.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA
:silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly:
-
Bullshit. Neither you nor any judge is a king. If a judge makes a "kook" decision, the solution (which has been exercised many times over the years by Congress) is to pass a law to clarify or override that decision.
And you keep coming back to that claim that congress refraining from fixing an idiotic court decision proves it was valid.
No, Congress cannot even balance a budget. Pointing to the ineptness of Congress to do it's job is not proof that Idiot-Kook Judges are correct in their Idiot-Kook decisions.
Sure, judges have expanded the reach of the 14th amendment. But the mechanism exists under the law to rein in or modify that reach.
Just as the "mechanism" exists to get fresh blood into congress... except it doesn't work. There is institutional inertia that prohibits "change". Just as incumbency grants to the holder extraordinary power to retain their seats, so too does the tediousness and difficulty of getting enough people to agree to overturn a judge, allow kook judges to get away with their crap.
This does not make their kook decisions not-crap. They are still crap decisions, and they just get away with them.
The fact that such expansion has been allowed to stand means that our Constitutional system is working as intended - the people are in favor of such expansion.
What utter nonsense. The system has been gamed, and the people have no viable recourse.
The bottom line is we are a nation of laws, not of men.
What does that even mean when the "law" can be pronounced to have a ridiculous meaning completely at odds with legislative intent?
We cannot be a nation of laws if the laws have no consistent meaning.
-
@Jazzhead
you talking about morals.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA
:silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly:
And what makes you more moral than me?
-
And what makes you more moral than me?
@Jazzhead
We're all sinners. Some repent and seek to do better. Some celebrate their sin.
-
And what makes you more moral than me?
'Scuse me, I'm going to go join @driftdiver. You're better than Nitrous on Dentist Day.
-
@To-Whose-Benefit?
Its not about proof its about FEEEELLLINGS
@driftdiver
I’ll say it again—-the squalling and shrieking and flouncing around is coming from the male side of the aisle.
Case in point. ^-^
-
@driftdiver
I’ll say it again—-the squalling and shrieking and flouncing around is coming from the male side of the aisle.
Case in point. ^-^
@CatherineofAragon
Nice try but not even close
its getting kinda funny watching you NTs wail and flounder about every stinking little thing. Its like you check in with the media to get your talking points every day
-
@CatherineofAragon
Nice try but not even close
its getting kinda funny watching you NTs wail and flounder about every stinking little thing. Its like you check in with the media to get your talking points every day
@driftdiver
No, it pretty much nails it. I’ve seen more hysterical all- caps emoting and multiple exclamation marks than I’ve seen before...outside of a Gateway Pundit headline, that is.
You’ve busted me. Never Trump, blah, blah , and I’m a secret Dem operative. That’s what you’ve got, and it’s pathetically stupid.
All because I won’t ease your conscience about that molesting creep.
-
@CatherineofAragon
Nice try but not even close
its getting kinda funny watching you NTs wail and flounder about every stinking little thing. Its like you check in with the media to get your talking points every day
All of this over a stupid senatorial candidate in a state that none of us live in? Wow. Y'all are willing to call each other names and be obnoxious to each other when someone doesn't agree with you over something that neither side can "prove"? We may never know the truth of the situation, and so many of you are willing to show your a$$ over something like this? Well, I hope we never have important issues to discuss; the forum's liable to go up in flames.
-
All of this over a stupid senatorial candidate in a state that none of us live in? Wow. Y'all are willing to call each other names and be obnoxious to each other when someone doesn't agree with you over something that neither side can "prove"? We may never know the truth of the situation, and so many of you are willing to show your a$$ over something like this? Well, I hope we never have important issues to discuss; the forum's liable to go up in flames.
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/orson_wells_Slow-Clap.gif)
-
All of this over a stupid senatorial candidate in a state that none of us live in? Wow. Y'all are willing to call each other names and be obnoxious to each other when someone doesn't agree with you over something that neither side can "prove"? We may never know the truth of the situation, and so many of you are willing to show your a$$ over something like this? Well, I hope we never have important issues to discuss; the forum's liable to go up in flames.
Well, there are certain dog whistle issues that make social conservatives' hair stand on end. One is the tyranny that a baker might just have to bake the cake he's advertised to provide. And another is the possibility that the sainted Judge Moore might actually be a lawless, hypocritical creep.
-
All of this over a stupid senatorial candidate in a state that none of us live in? Wow. Y'all are willing to call each other names and be obnoxious to each other when someone doesn't agree with you over something that neither side can "prove"? We may never know the truth of the situation, and so many of you are willing to show your a$$ over something like this? Well, I hope we never have important issues to discuss; the forum's liable to go up in flames.
Silly person. There is nothing more important than Roy Moore. I he is not elected Senator the space-time continuum will be turned upside down and maple trees will become the common currency. God help us all if that happens.
-
Well, there are certain dog whistle issues that make social conservatives' hair stand on end. One is the tyranny that a baker might just have to bake the cake he's advertised to provide. And another is the possibility that the sainted Judge Moore might actually be a lawless, hypocritical creep.
You must be the boards resident douche bag.
-
You must be the boards resident douche bag.
LOL!
-
Well, there are certain dog whistle issues that make social conservatives' hair stand on end. One is the tyranny that a baker might just have to bake the cake he's advertised to provide. And another is the possibility that the sainted Judge Moore might actually be a lawless, hypocritical creep.
If you want to send a man to the chair you need
the fired weapon
the projectile from the victim's body, which must have a Minimum of the matching Ballistics Test Proof numbers of rifling marks matching the rifling of the weapon's barrel (Here I'm rusty, but I Think it used to be 13 out of 21 possibles)
the accused's fingerprints/DNA on the weapon
a paraffin test on the accused's hand to prove they recently fired A gun/Some gun
Motive?
Kind of hard, in this case if you'll excuse the pun, to prove Roy Moore was the only guy who liked girls, out of the whole State, or COULD have liked them at age 17 instead of 18 (since the wheels have already been taken off the 14 year old story)
Opportunity?
Same as above.
The "Possibility that Moore Might Actually Be", is called a Lynch Mob, or Show Trial in Stalinist terms.
-
If you want to send a man to the chair you need
the fired weapon
the projectile from the victim's body, which must have a Minimum of the matching Ballistics Test Proof numbers of rifling marks matching the rifling of the weapon's barrel (Here I'm rusty, but I Think it used to be 13 out of 21 possibles)
the accused's fingerprints/DNA on the weapon
a paraffin test on the accused's hand to prove they recently fired A gun/Some gun
Motive?
Kind of hard, in this case if you'll excuse the pun, to prove Roy Moore was the only guy whom liked girls, out of the whole State, or COULD have liked them at age 17 instead of 18 (since the wheels have already been taken off the 14 year old story)
Opportunity?
Same as above.
The "Possibility that Moore Might Actually Be", is called a Lynch Mob, or Show Trial in Stalinist terms.
Fine, then you vote for him. Oh, wait....you can't because you don't even live in that state!
-
. . . at this point Moore could admit to the charges and some would still want him in office.
Some wanted him in well before this point and after the accusations arose.
Col. Busby already looks like a better candidate than either Moore or Jones.
-
Did someone say maple trees?
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3S7Q_dM1eVQ/VCmwU65GD-I/AAAAAAAAI9Y/J7Ztn4znaP4/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/Ted_Cruz_El_Cubano_De_Canada%CC%81_LARGE%5B1%5D.jpg)
-
Fine, then you vote for him. Oh, wait....you can't because you don't even live in that state!
BINGO!
And neither do most of the people here trying and convicting him in abstentia.
Mobs are ugly, and damned dangerous creatures.
The Founders referred to them as Factions.
-
BINGO!
And neither do most of the people here trying and convicting him in abstentia.
Mobs are ugly, and damned dangerous creatures.
The Founders referred to them as Factions.
"Convict"? It's a vote and when you vote you have to make a decision who to vote for. And, nobody's convicting or clearing anyone here of anything, even if they could....which they can't.
Some of the posters who, who can't vote for Moore, wouldn't vote for Moore. Some of the posters here, who can't vote for Moore, would vote for Moore.
This is beyond silly at this point. It's bordering on OCD.
11513
-
"Convict"? It's a vote and when you vote you have to make a decision who to vote for. And, nobody's convicting or clearing anyone here of anything, even if they could....which they can't.
Some of the posters who, who can't vote for Moore, wouldn't vote for Moore. Some of the posters here, who can't vote for Moore, would vote for Moore.
This is beyond silly at this point. It's bordering on OCD.
11513
I'll cop to being among the latter group . And of course I'm an excellent driver.
-
I'll cop to being among the latter group . And of course I'm an excellent driver.
Hey, as long as it's useful!
-
"Convict"? It's a vote and when you vote you have to make a decision who to vote for. And, nobody's convicting or clearing anyone here of anything, even if they could....which they can't.
Some of the posters who, who can't vote for Moore, wouldn't vote for Moore. Some of the posters here, who can't vote for Moore, would vote for Moore.
This is beyond silly at this point. It's bordering on OCD.
11513
Think, real hard, about what you just said.
Whether Moore wins or loses this race the Witch Hunters will have the last cackle.
Everywhere he goes (let's say he loses) people will shun him.
"Oh, that's that Roy Moore fellow. He almost became a Senator till it came out that he was a child molester."
Yes. I'll use the word Convict.
He will be shunned and avoided, Convicted in the Court of Mob Opinion, and forever personally and professionally mined over it.
Because he ran for elected Office.
Utterly ruined.
This is far more than a vote.
And I will be damned if I will countenance the use of such Precedent Setting smear tactics just to win a Senate Race.
You're upset about how many replies there have been picking at this nit?
Try counting all the replies Frank Cannon and RoosGirl have swelled threads with here. Witty sexually laden riposts, parries and Bon Mots, to each other. Personally, I'm getting tired of being notified there's a 'New Reply' to my post every time they do it.
BUT, they are both willing participants who are not destroying someone else.
A whole Universe of difference.
This crap isn't just a vote.
It's tearing a man's throat out without the benefit of a trial by a jury of his peers.
And it sucks, Major League.
-
888ohnoes
-
Think, real hard, about what you just said.
Whether Moore wins or loses this race the Witch Hunters will have the last cackle.
Everywhere he goes (let's say he loses) people will shun him.
"Oh, that's that Roy Moore fellow. He almost became a Senator till it came out that he was a child molester."
Yes. I'll use the word Convict.
He will be shunned and avoided, Convicted in the Court of Mob Opinion, and forever personally and professionally mined over it.
Because he ran for elected Office.
Utterly ruined.
This is far more than a vote.
And I will be damned if I will countenance the use of such Precedent Setting smear tactics just to win a Senate Race.
You're upset about how many replies there have been picking at this nit?
Try counting all the replies Frank Cannon and RoosGirl have swelled threads with here. Witty sexually laden riposts, parries and Bon Mots, to each other. Personally, I'm getting tired of being notified there's a 'New Reply' to my post every time they do it.
BUT, they are both willing participants who are not destroying someone else.
A whole Universe of difference.
This crap isn't just a vote.
It's tearing a man's throat out without the benefit of a trial by a jury of his peers.
And it sucks, Major League.
Most of those posting here have not had the experience of steping out of their safety zone and actually running for an elective office but I am not among that group and fully understand the risks involved with doing that. It's a wonder we can still find a decent person to run for anything and mostly we do not! What we see being done to Roy Moore is a perfect illustration of why we are in the mess we currently find ourselves.
-
This crap isn't just a vote.
It's tearing a man's throat out without the benefit of a trial by a jury of his peers.
And it sucks, Major League.
What sucks, Major League or otherwise, is that we have a man who is accused of sexual misconduct
with underage girls for whom people might vote regardless because, you know, well, Democrats,
with a tenuous Republican Senate majority at stake. We have the very real prospect of seeing a state
send a possible sexual criminal to Crapola Hill simply because, well, you know, he stands in their eyes
for the "right" things.
Funny how we had no trouble tearing out Democratic throats without the benefit of trials by jury
of their peers because, well, you know, they stood for the "wrong" things and their party
was just so deviant for standing by their manpersons despite what we knew was wrong with
them . . .
It's almost enough to make you wonder whether Teddy Kennedy---who never faced a trial by jury of
his peers (yes, we know he and his made damn sure that wouldn't happen unless hell froze over,
but let's not get technical)---would have gotten a Republican pass on Chappaquiddick if he'd been a
rightward Republican and thus on the right side, the way he got a Democratic pass for all those years
because he was a leftward Democrat and thus what they believed to be on the right side.
Almost.
I'll say it again: if nothing else, should this sordid business provoke a lot stronger vetting of candidates
by all political parties---major, minor, tailgate, surprise, or Tupperware, I don't care which---it would be
a very good thing.
-
What sucks, Major League or otherwise, is that we have a man who is accused of sexual misconduct
with underage girls for whom people might vote regardless because, you know, well, Democrats,
with a tenuous Republican Senate majority at stake. We have the very real prospect of seeing a state
send a possible sexual criminal to Crapola Hill simply because, well, you know, he stands in their eyes
for the "right" things.
Funny how we had no trouble tearing out Democratic throats without the benefit of trials by jury
of their peers because, well, you know, they stood for the "wrong" things and their party
was just so deviant for standing by their manpersons despite what we knew was wrong with
them . . .
It's almost enough to make you wonder whether Teddy Kennedy---who never faced a trial by jury of
his peers (yes, we know he and his made damn sure that wouldn't happen until hell froze over,
but let's not get technical)---would have gotten a rightward Republican pass on Chappaquiddick if he'd
been a Republican and thus on the right side, the way he got a Democratic pass for all those years
because he was a leftward Democrat and thus what they believed to be on the right side.
I'll say it again: if nothing else, should this sordid business provoke a lot stronger vetting of candidates
by all political parties---major, minor, tailgate, surprise, or Tupperware, I don't care which---it would be
a very good thing.
And who will vet the vetors?
-
What sucks, Major League or otherwise, is that we have a man who is accused of sexual misconduct
with underage girls for whom people might vote regardless because, you know, well, Democrats,
with a tenuous Republican Senate majority at stake. We have the very real prospect of seeing a state
send a possible sexual criminal to Crapola Hill simply because, well, you know, he stands in their eyes
for the "right" things.
Funny how we had no trouble tearing out Democratic throats without the benefit of trials by jury
of their peers because, well, you know, they stood for the "wrong" things and their party
was just so deviant for standing by their manpersons despite what we knew was wrong with
them . . .
It's almost enough to make you wonder whether Teddy Kennedy---who never faced a trial by jury of
his peers (yes, we know he and his made damn sure that wouldn't happen unless hell froze over,
but let's not get technical)---would have gotten a Republican pass on Chappaquiddick if he'd been a
rightward Republican and thus on the right side, the way he got a Democratic pass for all those years
because he was a leftward Democrat and thus what they believed to be on the right side.
Almost.
I'll say it again: if nothing else, should this sordid business provoke a lot stronger vetting of candidates
by all political parties---major, minor, tailgate, surprise, or Tupperware, I don't care which---it would be
a very good thing.
BRAVO!!!
-
The number of democrat enablers around here astounds me. I would almost swear peloser has multiple accounts here.
-
The number of democrat enablers around here astounds me. I would almost swear peloser has multiple accounts here.
Since you're here, and the thread where you called me a liar closed before I could respond, let me respond here, and then I am done with it.....
#1 - Calling me a liar was an indication that you understood you had lost the debate and had nothing reasonable to respond with.
#2 - I had made a simple statement of fact...."God's laws of sexual morality apply equally to both men and women." You spent the better part of the day trying to shoot that statement down, saying that God made men and women different, therefore my statement was incorrect.
#3 - I asked you to provide a Scripture reference where men were excluded from the laws of morality, and you refused to give me any. (And in addition you leveled the silliest of accusations saying that my argument based on Scripture was "PC.")
#4 - I replied with the logical conclusion of your argument (and your intransigence and smarminess) by saying that you didn't believe in the 7th commandment, or that it applied to men. At that point, you called me a liar, when all I was doing was following your argument to it's logical end.
#5 - If you do not believe that God's commands regarding sexual morality apply equally to men because God made you different than women, then my conclusion was accurate. If you do believe that morality is equally applied, then you were playing a dishonest game, or are possibly one of the worst communicators/debaters around.
#6 - In addition to the 7th Commandment, you have to ignore the words of Jesus regarding adultery and lust, all the many references to sexual morality (fornication, adultery, homosexuality.... IOW, any sex outside the bonds of male-female marriage) in the Epistles, in order to make the argument you were making against my simple statement of Biblical truth.
#7 - There is one more possibility, that you were too emotionally involved in the conversation to present a lucid and rational argument, but as it stands, you lost the argument big time, and you know, of course, that nothing I said was a lie.
Thanks for listening.
(I will no longer converse with you on this subject as you are lacking objectivity, and cannot debate the subject intelligently. On other subjects, you may feel free to comment and respond to my posts. On this one, it would be best, for your sake, if you ignored what I said, and stopped pursuing me).
:seeya: @Fantom
-
Think, real hard, about what you just said.
Whether Moore wins or loses this race the Witch Hunters will have the last cackle.
Everywhere he goes (let's say he loses) people will shun him.
"Oh, that's that Roy Moore fellow. He almost became a Senator till it came out that he was a child molester."
Yes. I'll use the word Convict.
He will be shunned and avoided, Convicted in the Court of Mob Opinion, and forever personally and professionally mined over it.
Because he ran for elected Office.
Utterly ruined.
This is far more than a vote.
And I will be damned if I will countenance the use of such Precedent Setting smear tactics just to win a Senate Race.
You're upset about how many replies there have been picking at this nit?
Try counting all the replies Frank Cannon and RoosGirl have swelled threads with here. Witty sexually laden riposts, parries and Bon Mots, to each other. Personally, I'm getting tired of being notified there's a 'New Reply' to my post every time they do it.
BUT, they are both willing participants who are not destroying someone else.
A whole Universe of difference.
This crap isn't just a vote.
It's tearing a man's throat out without the benefit of a trial by a jury of his peers.
And it sucks, Major League.
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/orson_wells_Slow-Clap.gif) (http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/orson_wells_Slow-Clap.gif) (http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/orson_wells_Slow-Clap.gif)(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/orson_wells_Slow-Clap.gif)
And.... it sets the permanent precedent of using the tool of choice for the Oligarchy in DC to choose our rulers for us, no matter whom we ourselves prefer.
-
The number of democrat enablers around here astounds me. I would almost swear peloser has multiple accounts here.
@Fantom
Simple-minded TOS level crap.
When did conservatives decide to let their minds atrophy?
-
@Fantom
Simple-minded TOS level crap.
When did conservatives decide to let their minds atrophy?
It occurred, for a significant amount of them, back in May 2016.
-
Since you're here, and the thread where you called me a liar closed before I could respond, let me respond here, and then I am done with it.....
#1 - Calling me a liar was an indication that you understood you had lost the debate and had nothing reasonable to respond with.
#2 - I had made a simple statement of fact...."God's laws of sexual morality apply equally to both men and women." You spent the better part of the day trying to shoot that statement down, saying that God made men and women different, therefore my statement was incorrect.
#3 - I asked you to provide a Scripture reference where men were excluded from the laws of morality, and you refused to give me any. (And in addition you leveled the silliest of accusations saying that my argument based on Scripture was "PC.")
#4 - I replied with the logical conclusion of your argument (and your intransigence and smarminess) by saying that you didn't believe in the 7th commandment, or that it applied to men. At that point, you called me a liar, when all I was doing was following your argument to it's logical end.
#5 - If you do not believe that God's commands regarding sexual morality apply equally to men because God made you different than women, then my conclusion was accurate. If you do believe that morality is equally applied, then you were playing a dishonest game, or are possibly one of the worst communicators/debaters around.
#6 - In addition to the 7th Commandment, you have to ignore the words of Jesus regarding adultery and lust, all the many references to sexual morality (fornication, adultery, homosexuality.... IOW, any sex outside the bonds of male-female marriage) in the Epistles, in order to make the argument you were making against my simple statement of Biblical truth.
#7 - There is one more possibility, that you were too emotionally involved in the conversation to present a lucid and rational argument, but as it stands, you lost the argument big time, and you know, of course, that nothing I said was a lie.
Thanks for listening.
(I will no longer converse with you on this subject as you are lacking objectivity, and cannot debate the subject intelligently. On other subjects, you may feel free to comment and respond to my posts. On this one, it would be best, for your sake, if you ignored what I said, and stopped pursuing me).
:seeya: @Fantom
Meh, :shrug: Your own words called you out. As far as pursuit...looks like you have the projection down pat.
Speak, don't speak...Meh. I will do the same.
BTW, have a good night there @musiclady.
-
There is no presumption of innocence attached to a candidate's run for political office.
There is ALWAYS a presumption of innocence between honorable people.To so blithely defame a man is nothing short of scurrilous.
The voters are being asked to exercise their common sense, not render a legal verdict.
There is no common sense in bowing to gossip, and ripping away a lifetime of honorable service on the basis of hearsay..
Do you believe Roy Moore or his accusers?
I believe Moore, hands down. There is no evidence against him. And his accusers are of questionable reliability, and likely politically driven,
Trust your gut, trust your instincts.
What nonsense. Trust the evidence. This is no different than a bleeding heart 'it's for the chidrennn'.
Poppycock.
There will be no "proof" of the sort you demand prior to the election.
There will be no proof at all. But if there is, THEN is the time to try him. Then is the time to make him step down, and there will be no shortage of people ready to crucify him.
Nevertheless, it is up to the people of Alabama to enable or deny the political ambitions of a lawless hypocrite.
Yes, and thankfully, I will lay a good bet the people of Alabama still believe in the concept of proof.
-
And I do believe that Judge Moore was a Judge in the STATE of Alabama and was acting as an advocate for his STATE against federal overreaches in every instance! In other words, he was actually UPHOLDING his oath of office!
That is the FACT of the matter.
-
I'll say it again: if nothing else, should this sordid business provoke a lot stronger vetting of candidates
by all political parties---major, minor, tailgate, surprise, or Tupperware, I don't care which---it would be
a very good thing.
HE'S BEEN VETTED FOR FORTY YEARS, through two very national and very fractious events. You can't get better vetting.
-
It occurred, for a significant amount of them, back in May 2016.
@corbe
Yeah, I can’t argue.
-
The number of democrat enablers around here astounds me. I would almost swear peloser has multiple accounts here.
@Fantom
Wanted to publicly acknowledge your caterpillar to butterfly 'transmorgafication' since "The Great Tsunami".
Proud to know you!
:beer:
-
Think, real hard, about what you just said.
Whether Moore wins or loses this race the Witch Hunters will have the last cackle.
Everywhere he goes (let's say he loses) people will shun him.
"Oh, that's that Roy Moore fellow. He almost became a Senator till it came out that he was a child molester."
Yes. I'll use the word Convict.
He will be shunned and avoided, Convicted in the Court of Mob Opinion, and forever personally and professionally mined over it.
Because he ran for elected Office.
Utterly ruined.
This is far more than a vote.
And I will be damned if I will countenance the use of such Precedent Setting smear tactics just to win a Senate Race.
You're upset about how many replies there have been picking at this nit?
Try counting all the replies Frank Cannon and RoosGirl have swelled threads with here. Witty sexually laden riposts, parries and Bon Mots, to each other. Personally, I'm getting tired of being notified there's a 'New Reply' to my post every time they do it.
BUT, they are both willing participants who are not destroying someone else.
A whole Universe of difference.
This crap isn't just a vote.
It's tearing a man's throat out without the benefit of a trial by a jury of his peers.
And it sucks, Major League.
Oh, the drama.
And for who? A politician?
No one forces a man to run for political office, and everyone knows that politics ain't beanbag.
The sexual harassment scandals in the press and media industries are claiming careers. Matt Lauer, as big an icon as there is in television news, was fired this morning. Politicians? No one's paid any price yet. Franken says he's sorry, but he won't step down. Conyers' iconic status has so far saved him, unlike Mr. Lauer. And evangelicals are tripping over everything they claim to believe to run to the polls to vote in Roy Moore.
Political partisans defend their man, and unashamedly embrace the double standard. Moore's a creep, but he'll oppose abortion, so who cares. Franken's a groper, but he'll vote to ban assault rifles, so who cares. Trump's a sexual braggart, but he wants to make America great again, so who cares.
Don't waste your tears on Roy Moore.
-
Meh, :shrug: Your own words called you out. As far as pursuit...looks like you have the projection down pat.
Speak, don't speak...Meh. I will do the same.
BTW, have a good night there @musiclady.
As for the "pursuit," I only said that because you were the one instigating the disagreement (childishly, I might add) to the simple Biblical truth I was posting about.
But it's interesting that in all the things I posted, the word "pursuit" is the only thing you could disagree with. The rest, since it is all true, you clearly agree with.
I consider that a total victory........ so thanks. You understand that men have to obey God's mroal laws just like women do.
(I knew you knew I was right all along and that you were just playing a silly game, but it's good to have it verified. I was worried about you for a while, with all that "God's law says men can sin sexually" stuff you were posting).
At any rate, "meh" back atcha! I had a GREAT evening, and the morning is starting out swimmingly. Hope the same is true for you. :beer:
-
As for the "pursuit," I only said that because you were the one instigating the disagreement (childishly, I might add) to the simple Biblical truth I was posting about.
But it's interesting that in all the things I posted, the word "pursuit" is the only thing you could disagree with. The rest, since it is all true, you clearly agree with.
I consider that a total victory........ so thanks. You understand that men have to obey God's mroal laws just like women do.
(I knew you knew I was right all along and that you were just playing a silly game, but it's good to have it verified. I was worried about you for a while, with all that "God's law says men can sin sexually" stuff you were posting).
At any rate, "meh" back atcha! I had a GREAT evening, and the morning is starting out swimmingly. Hope the same is true for you. :beer:
I've come to realize that there are very few actual real Christians in this country. I'm talking about people who actually think about their souls and final judgement. So called Conservative Christians who vote for immorality are no different than the so called Liberal Christians who vote for immorality.
On the other hand if they want to try to use God to justify supporting immorality it is quite literally no skin off my soul. God doesn't do collectivism.
-
I've come to realize that there are very few actual real Christians in this country. I'm talking about people who actually think about their souls and final judgement. So called Conservative Christians who vote for immorality are no different than the so called Liberal Christians who vote for immorality.
On the other hand if they want to try to use God to justify supporting immorality it is quite literally no skin off my soul. God doesn't do collectivism.
I heartily agree. The last two years have been an eye-opener to me. I always knew there were significant cracks in the armor of the American contemporary church, but it's been revealing to see the dam crack wide open and the flood of "no big deal" detachment from moral absolutes come gushing through.
Lots of folks click "Christian" on the box, but neither believe nor live what it demands.
(Keeping in mind that we ALL fall far short of the Glory of God, but at least know what that means and try to live as Christ taught).
-
I heartily agree. The last two years have been an eye-opener to me. I always knew there were significant cracks in the armor of the American contemporary church, but it's been revealing to see the dam crack wide open and the flood of "no big deal" detachment from moral absolutes come gushing through.
Lots of folks click "Christian" on the box, but neither believe nor live what it demands.
(Keeping in mind that we ALL fall far short of the Glory of God, but at least know what that means and try to live as Christ taught).
The liberal Christians in my family use God to justify supporting outright marxism just as my atheist sister uses her self righteousness to justify supporting abortion. These so called conservative Christians who justify voting for immorality are doing the exact same thing.
They can claim "God's will" if they win but few will claim the same if they lose but the ultimate reality is that God gives us free will to choose between good and evil and the ultimate consequence is our own. That ideal of Godly free will is the very seed of revolution planted by men like George Whitefield in the 1700s.
-
"Don't waste your tears on Roy Moore."
@Jazzhead
And up to now, the time to reply to anything you've posted.
Amazes me that self identified Conservatives are all willing to jump on the Lynch Mob bandwagon.
What are they in favor of Conserving?
The 4th Amendment?
The 5th Amendment?
The 6th Amendment?
The 7th Amendment?
How about the 8th Amendment? Cruel and Unusual Punishment, sans Trial, inflicted by the Moral Superiority of a Lynch Mob.
Apparently they're not in favor of Conserving anything beyond their own self importance gauged by the depths of their own FEEEELLLIINGS of Superior Outrage because someone who MIGHT have done something, MIGHT be elected.
Every Citizen in this country MIGHT have done all manner of things, some of them prohibited by criminal law.
Which is why we have laws, and Courts.
Not Lynch Mobs.
But according to you, it's OK to DO IT to Roy Moore. Just cinch the noose around his neck and hoist him up into the tree, because of his desired 'Condition of Employment'.
He's applying for a job to the people of the State of Alabama as one of their U.S. Senators.
So that kicks his Unalienable God Given Rights off the Table. It Strips Roy Moore of His 'Equal Under Law' birthright because YOU have identified him as just a politician.
Real Nice to know what being a Citizen means to You, Jazzhead.
Thanks for the Clarification.
Welcome to Jazzhead's America, where Some people are More Equal Than Others, due to their Condition of Employment.
-
The liberal Christians in my family use God to justify supporting outright marxism just as my atheist sister uses her self righteousness to justify supporting abortion. These so called conservative Christians who justify voting for immorality are doing the exact same thing.
They can claim "God's will" if they win but few will claim the same if they lose but the ultimate reality is that God gives us free will to choose between good and evil and the ultimate consequence is our own. That ideal of Godly free will is the very seed of revolution planted by men like George Whitefield in the 1700s.
All I can say to that, is AMEN!!
-
Real Nice to know what being a Citizen means to You, Jazzhead.
Thanks for the Clarification.
Welcome to Jazzhead's America, where Some people are More Equal Than Others, due to their Condition of Employment.
And don't forget that if you own a business, you must bake the effing homosexual celebration cake or be punished and destroyed in like-manner, have your business destroyed and rot in prison for bigotry in Jazzhead's sick, perverted world.
-
All I can say to that, is AMEN!!
Moore on abortion:
"Because a human life with a full genetic endowment comes into existence at the moment of conception, the self-evident truth that “all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights†encompasses the moment of conception. Legal recognition of the unborn as members of the human family derives ultimately from the laws of nature and of nature’s God, Who created human life in His image and protected it with the commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.†Therefore, the interpretation of the word “child†in Alabama’s chemical-endangerment statute, § 26-15- 3.2, Ala. Code 1975, to include all human beings from the moment of conception is fully consistent with these first principles regarding life and law."
Factor this in as long as we're talking about who's more likely doing God's will.
-
What sucks, Major League or otherwise, is that we have a man who is accused of sexual misconduct
with underage girls for whom people might vote regardless because, you know, well, Democrats,
with a tenuous Republican Senate majority at stake. We have the very real prospect of seeing a state
send a possible sexual criminal to Crapola Hill simply because, well, you know, he stands in their eyes
for the "right" things.
Funny how we had no trouble tearing out Democratic throats without the benefit of trials by jury
of their peers because, well, you know, they stood for the "wrong" things and their party
was just so deviant for standing by their manpersons despite what we knew was wrong with
them . . .
It's almost enough to make you wonder whether Teddy Kennedy---who never faced a trial by jury of
his peers (yes, we know he and his made damn sure that wouldn't happen unless hell froze over,
but let's not get technical)---would have gotten a Republican pass on Chappaquiddick if he'd been a
rightward Republican and thus on the right side, the way he got a Democratic pass for all those years
because he was a leftward Democrat and thus what they believed to be on the right side.
Almost.
I'll say it again: if nothing else, should this sordid business provoke a lot stronger vetting of candidates
by all political parties---major, minor, tailgate, surprise, or Tupperware, I don't care which---it would be
a very good thing.
Dead babies.
Justify your position in light of that.
-
The number of democrat enablers around here astounds me. I would almost swear peloser has multiple accounts here.
I have already made up my mind that were we in a combat situation, there are a bunch of people here I would frag before they had a chance to get me killed and the mission compromised.
They are literally working against the primary goal here.
“If I had but one bullet and were faced by both an enemy and a traitor, I would let the traitor have it.†— Corneliu Codreanu —
-
I have already made up my mind that were we in a combat situation, there are a bunch of people here I would frag before they had a chance to get me killed and the mission compromised.
They are literally working against the primary goal here.
“If I had but one bullet and were faced by both an enemy and a traitor, I would let the traitor have it.†— Corneliu Codreanu —
You are aware that sounds a bit hysterical and shrill, are you not?
-
You are aware that sounds a bit hysterical and shrill, are you not?
I always sound a bit hysterical and shrill. It reminds me of that old saying.
If you can keep your head when all about are losing theirs, it's just possible that you haven't grasped the situation. (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jean_Kerr)
-
Obviously being neutered is going to eventually end up being a requirement of running for office eventually.
-
Obviously being neutered is going to eventually end up being a requirement of running for office eventually.
Nonsense. Keeping your pants up while at work and avoiding potentially compromising situations is all it takes.
-
Obviously being neutered is going to eventually end up being a requirement of running for office eventually.
Won't help. Somebody will find an anecdote of something done before puberty.
-
Obviously being neutered is going to eventually end up being a requirement of running for office eventually.
We already have a shit ton of eunuchs in congress. Don't see an upside with that course of action.
-
Nonsense. Keeping your pants up while at work and avoiding potentially compromising situations is all it takes.
I learned at my most recent Harassment training class that avoiding potentially compromising situations will get you hammered for "creating a hostile work environment." If a bullet has your name on it....
-
I learned at my most recent Harassment training class that avoiding potentially compromising situations will get you hammered for "creating a hostile work environment."
Societal consequences coming soon if not ongoing.
Reference the massive decline in dating and marriage and the massive upswing in online gaming and sex robots to replace relationships and extrapolate that as what portents might arise out of a 'damned if you don't avoid potentially compromising situations' and damned if you do in the workplace. Nothing good comes out of this, that I can assure.
The collapse of our culture and society might make the fall of Rome look like a paper cut.
-
Nonsense. Keeping your pants up while at work and avoiding potentially compromising situations is all it takes.
I know someone who had harassment charges filed against them, because there was a copy of The Real Anita Hill on their desk.
Nothing happened over it, but the process still had to be followed.
-
I learned at my most recent Harassment training class that avoiding potentially compromising situations will get you hammered for "creating a hostile work environment." If a bullet has your name on it....
Really? I'm always careful to not entertain or ask people in to my hotel room (male or female; you never know these days), and I don't visit other colleagues in their rooms. My office door is usually open, and if it's closed, the whole world can see in through the glass front because I keep the blinds raised. I am careful to keep what I put into emails is always professional and unambiguous. And, I'm a potential target and work in a hypersensitive environment.
Oh, and re: the last comment, what I read in private, I don't keep on my desk. Why would I want to invite trouble?
-
Really? I'm always careful to not entertain or ask people in to my hotel room (male or female; you never know these days), and I don't visit other colleagues in their rooms. My office door is usually open, and if it's closed, the whole world can see in through the glass front because I keep the blinds raised. I am careful to keep what I put into emails is always professional and unambiguous. And, I'm a potential target and work in a hypersensitive environment.
Oh, and re: the last comment, what I read in private, I don't keep on my desk. Why would I want to invite trouble?
Well, sounds like you've got it covered. But then, people may make fun of you for being too circumspect. Look at what happened to Mike Pence. Liberals laughing their butts off because he only has dinner with his wife.
-
Really? I'm always careful to not entertain or ask people in to my hotel room (male or female; you never know these days), and I don't visit other colleagues in their rooms. My office door is usually open, and if it's closed, the whole world can see in through the glass front because I keep the blinds raised. I am careful to keep what I put into emails is always professional and unambiguous. And, I'm a potential target and work in a hypersensitive environment.
Oh, and re: the last comment, what I read in private, I don't keep on my desk. Why would I want to invite trouble?
Really. I work in a lab for a large corporation, so there are never Hotel rooms involved or anything, but what you describe about that environment is perfectly reasonable.
I've had to take the mandatory training for over 25 years now, so I've seen the rules change over the years. It used to be just keeping a good distance and never being alone with other people was sufficient, but this last go 'round my answers to the quiz were checked "wrong" because I'm overly cautious. I was informed that had to be changed because I would be creating a hostile work environment. I told them to pound sand because I worked it out so I only deal with computers and test equipment, there are never any other people around me anymore. It's mostly because they all got laid off, but it's made my life less fearful.
You mention an office with windows...first, that's a luxury only executives get. Secondly, it affords you no protection when words are what can get you in trouble. You would have to tape everything to get partial protection.
I wish I could just telecommute the way I used to. Life was great, but then we got a boss who loved to "manage by walking around." He was an asshat, ruined everything.
-
I learned at my most recent Harassment training class that avoiding potentially compromising situations will get you hammered for "creating a hostile work environment." If a bullet has your name on it....
@Cyber Liberty
Its important to keep in mind that HRs job isn't to protect employees or create a healthy work environment. I know they say that at all the new hire and annual training classes but its not true. No, HRs job is to keep the company from getting sued by employees. In my experience you are never alone with a female coworker, never not even if you think you trust her.
-
Nonsense. Keeping your pants up while at work and avoiding potentially compromising situations is all it takes.
I like to live dangerously. Besides it takes two to tango. , Mon Cherie, Cara Mia, Querida Mia, Cara Bella!
-
Nonsense. Keeping your pants up while at work and avoiding potentially compromising situations is all it takes.
@Sanguine
Bullpucky, not even close to true
-
Well, sounds like you've got it covered. But then, people may make fun of you for being too circumspect. Look at what happened to Mike Pence. Liberals laughing their butts off because he only has dinner with his wife.
You can't keep people from being stupid, @Emjay. And, that goes for women too. Don't go into a man's room, shut the door, and then act surprised when he tries to put the moves on.
-
I like to live dangerously. Besides it takes two to tango. , Mon Cherie, Cara Mia, Querida Mia, Cara Bella!
It may take two to tango, but it only takes one to be an a$$.
-
@Sanguine
Bullpucky, not even close to true
Really? How so?
-
It may take two to tango, but it only takes one to be an a$$.
You are officially off my dance card.
-
You are officially off my dance card.
I'm flattered that I was ever on it.
-
Really? How so?
@Sanguine
At a previous job I supervised about 5 engineers, my official title was Test & Acceptance Supervisor which HR abbreviated T&A Supervisor. My boss left and they made me manager over my group and another group that was 14 women and 1 old guy. Since my boss had hired the women based on looks, by his own admission, only about 1/3 could do the job.
They changed my title to Revenue Assurance Manager, sounds like fun doesn't it. And told me to have daily training sessions with the 14 women to teach them their job.
I'd walk into the daily meetings to find them having very graphic conversations everything from their DDs to how their date performed last night. Then they decided they didn't like me and wanted to get me fired. First it was the young lady who walked up to me and stuck her chest out then asked if I thought she needed a boob job. Next they went to the Second highest guy in the company and told him that I was telling people they were having whore parties at their house. Had one of them do the old Sharon Stone chair turn and flash me. I was young and didn't realize I should report these things to HR, or that I should sue them when they turned out false. I never asked for 'favors' and never suggested anything.
No, I went and found another job because they were determined to get me fired because they didnt want to work. So the idea that all women are prim and proper is FALSE. yes many women are good and yes some men are troublemakers. Keeping your pants on only helps prevent problems with the good women.
-
Really? I'm always careful to not entertain or ask people in to my hotel room (male or female; you never know these days), and I don't visit other colleagues in their rooms. My office door is usually open, and if it's closed, the whole world can see in through the glass front because I keep the blinds raised. I am careful to keep what I put into emails is always professional and unambiguous. And, I'm a potential target and work in a hypersensitive environment.
Oh, and re: the last comment, what I read in private, I don't keep on my desk. Why would I want to invite trouble?
Years ago I would take female clients to lunch alone, in my car. Did it all the time. Stopped doing it years ago.
I worked with one woman on a project. Took her to lunch several times.One day she called me at work and said she found me attractive, asked if I was happy in my marriage ( I was ) and if there was a possibility of us getting together....gulp. Told her I was happy and we should not be together alone and that was the end of that.
I'm waiting for the female harassment stories to come out but not holding my breath over all the anti male hysteria going on today
@Sanguine
-
Years ago I would take female clients to lunch alone, in my car.
How many years ago? Did the waitress wear roller skates?
-
@Sanguine
At a previous job I supervised about 5 engineers, my official title was Test & Acceptance Supervisor which HR abbreviated T&A Supervisor. My boss left and they made me manager over my group and another group that was 14 women and 1 old guy. Since my boss had hired the women based on looks, by his own admission, only about 1/3 could do the job.
They changed my title to Revenue Assurance Manager, sounds like fun doesn't it. And told me to have daily training sessions with the 14 women to teach them their job.
I'd walk into the daily meetings to find them having very graphic conversations everything from their DDs to how their date performed last night. Then they decided they didn't like me and wanted to get me fired. First it was the young lady who walked up to me and stuck her chest out then asked if I thought she needed a boob job. Next they went to the Second highest guy in the company and told him that I was telling people they were having whore parties at their house. Had one of them do the old Sharon Stone chair turn and flash me. I was young and didn't realize I should report these things to HR, or that I should sue them when they turned out false. I never asked for 'favors' and never suggested anything.
No, I went and found another job because they were determined to get me fired because they didnt want to work. So the idea that all women are prim and proper is FALSE. yes many women are good and yes some men are troublemakers. Keeping your pants on only helps prevent problems with the good women.
Yeah, I've worked with a few hootchie-mamas in my life and I can't imagine having a whole roomful of them to deal with. And, I've worked with men who would probably be locked up today. Having a set of ground rules is a necessary start, but will not fully ameliorate pathological situations like that.
-
Years ago I would take female clients to lunch alone, in my car. Did it all the time. Stopped doing it years ago.
I worked with one woman on a project. Took her to lunch several times.One day she called me at work and said she found me attractive, asked if I was happy in my marriage ( I was ) and if there was a possibility of us getting together....gulp. Told her I was happy and we should not be together alone and that was the end of that.
I'm waiting for the female harassment stories to come out but not holding my breath over all the anti male hysteria going on today
@Sanguine
Oh, they're out there, and they do come out on occasion, but that's mostly due to the rarity of the situation. As we agreed on another thread, men and women aren't totally the same.
-
@Cyber Liberty
Its important to keep in mind that HRs job isn't to protect employees or create a healthy work environment. I know they say that at all the new hire and annual training classes but its not true. No, HRs job is to keep the company from getting sued by employees. In my experience you are never alone with a female coworker, never not even if you think you trust her.
100% true. Like any other person at work, you have to understand their job function when sizing them up. HR and Legal can be the most problematic people. Legal where I work isn't so bad because they deal with a lot of patent law, and that's pretty dry stuff.
-
100% true. Like any other person at work, you have to understand their job function when sizing them up. HR and Legal can be the most problematic people. Legal where I work isn't so bad because they deal with a lot of patent law, and that's pretty dry stuff.
I agree; HR and Legal are there to protect them who pays their check.
-
I agree; HR and Legal are there to protect them who pays their check.
HR has more than one task. They are there primarily to protect the company from the workers, but they are also there to softsoap the employees by lying about what their primary responsibility is. They'll tell you they are there to help workers to achieve their goals, but that's secondary. As you say, they're mindful about where their checks come from, and every employee of a company from CEO on down to mail room should never lose sight of that.
I've made it through 33 years so far....
-
100% true. Like any other person at work, you have to understand their job function when sizing them up. HR and Legal can be the most problematic people. Legal where I work isn't so bad because they deal with a lot of patent law, and that's pretty dry stuff.
I have my own small company now. Don't try to bed the females and don't be alone with them, not even sitting beside them on an airplane.
My last HR person decided to try and get me. We had a gym as part of our office complex. She started talking about one of the other ladies in the building who was walking around the locker room naked. Trying to get me to say something she could use.
yeah she's not here anymore
-
(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/GOEqR.sG6efgb5rEN04OYg--~B/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD00MDA7dz02MDA-/https://epeak.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/judge-roy-moore-wins-alabama-senate-primary-dealing-a-huge-blow-to-mitch-mcconnell.jpg.cf.jpg)
I just want to take a minute to thank Matt Lauer for removing the spotlight from me, however briefly.....
-
(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/GOEqR.sG6efgb5rEN04OYg--~B/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD00MDA7dz02MDA-/https://epeak.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/judge-roy-moore-wins-alabama-senate-primary-dealing-a-huge-blow-to-mitch-mcconnell.jpg.cf.jpg)
I just want to take a minute to thank Matt Lauer for removing the spotlight from me, however briefly.....
LOL.
-
@Sanguine
At a previous job I supervised about 5 engineers, my official title was Test & Acceptance Supervisor which HR abbreviated T&A Supervisor. My boss left and they made me manager over my group and another group that was 14 women and 1 old guy. Since my boss had hired the women based on looks, by his own admission, only about 1/3 could do the job.
They changed my title to Revenue Assurance Manager, sounds like fun doesn't it. And told me to have daily training sessions with the 14 women to teach them their job.
I'd walk into the daily meetings to find them having very graphic conversations everything from their DDs to how their date performed last night. Then they decided they didn't like me and wanted to get me fired. First it was the young lady who walked up to me and stuck her chest out then asked if I thought she needed a boob job. Next they went to the Second highest guy in the company and told him that I was telling people they were having whore parties at their house. Had one of them do the old Sharon Stone chair turn and flash me. I was young and didn't realize I should report these things to HR, or that I should sue them when they turned out false. I never asked for 'favors' and never suggested anything.
No, I went and found another job because they were determined to get me fired because they didnt want to work. So the idea that all women are prim and proper is FALSE. yes many women are good and yes some men are troublemakers. Keeping your pants on only helps prevent problems with the good women.
@driftdiver
I guess I was extremely lucky because I worked around engineers and highly skilled technicians of both sexes all my working life. Can't remember a time when there wasn't a bunch of grabassing and playing going on that nobody ever took any of seriously although there WAS a red face to be seen now and then. Everybody got along great and our work generally got done very well and mostly ahead of schedule.
Of course most of my working life was before all this cultural Marxism BS took hold in our society and that likely played a large role.
-
LOL.
@Sanguine
You can't help noticing that, today, if you're in show business and you're accused of or caught
misbehaving sexually, you get fired . . . but if you're in politics and you're accused of or caught
sexually misbehaving, you get elected.
-
@Sanguine
You can't help noticing that, today, if you're in show business and you're accused of or caught
misbehaving sexually, you get fired . . . but if you're in politics and you're accused of or caught
sexually misbehaving, you get elected.
Yep.
-
You can't help noticing that, today, if you're in show business and you're accused of or caught
misbehaving sexually, you get fired . . . but if you're in politics and you're accused of or caught
sexually misbehaving, you get elected.
Circa 1996.
Been that way as far as politicians go. We were indeed lectured that what happens privately and sexually does not interfere with job performance.
And America went "Okay".
Hollywierd and the Pravda Media's avalanche of fired faces however...... is a brand new trend in discipline.
-
@Sanguine
You can't help noticing that, today, if you're in show business and you're accused of or caught
misbehaving sexually, you get fired . . . but if you're in politics and you're accused of or caught
sexually misbehaving, you get elected.
So I've been helping Roy all along, it seems!
-
So I've been helping Roy all along, it seems!
You have, just not in the way you thought. Please keep talking.
-
The Alabama state government has even said they've had so many requests on how to vote a write-in candidate even before Busby entered, they have issued instructions.
How to cast a write-in vote in Alabama
Updated Nov 20; Posted Nov 20
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/how_to_cast_a_write-in_vote_in.html (http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/how_to_cast_a_write-in_vote_in.html)
Popular demand leads Alabama’s top elections official to issue guidance on how to cast a write-in vote
Posted 10:23 am, November 29, 2017, by Maxie Gardner, Updated at 10:32AM, November 29, 2017
MONTGOMERY, Ala. – Secretary of State John Merrill has issued some guidance for casting a write-in vote ahead of the Special Senate Election on December 12. He did so because of a large number of requests to his office for the exact procedures.
“The write-in process is simple but voters do need to be aware of how to cast their vote effectively and efficiently,†said Merrill.
The list below has been distributed to all Probate Judges in Alabama, as well as election officials. It will also be available for interested voters at their polling place.
Read more at: http://whnt.com/2017/11/29/want-to-cast-a-vote-for-a-write-in-candidate-heres-how/ (http://whnt.com/2017/11/29/want-to-cast-a-vote-for-a-write-in-candidate-heres-how/)
-
You have, just not in the way you thought. Please keep talking.
How are you feeling tonight @Cyber Liberty?
-
@Fantom
Wanted to publicly acknowledge your caterpillar to butterfly 'transmorgafication' since "The Great Tsunami".
Proud to know you!
:beer:
@DCPatriot
No , "'Mogrification".. Trans ort other.
Always an ally with the Judge Roy types I will be. Good men...good ...decent People.
I have shifted to President Trump. His works have allayed my fears. In such movement, Trumpansies(of which many still exist) are less inciteful/foolish by the position they take than the woeful anti-Trumpers.
I am with Ted Cruz..... certainly would vote for him today over Trump, given the chance. But I am a realist, Trump is doing some things no one else could. Particularly, shoving Leftist media up their own asses.
You could call me an "Idealistic Machiavellian"... pragmatism over virtue. Falling upon ones sword is no way to win a battle.... much less a war.
BTW...you still are playing "Pocket Pool" ....... "transmogrification" indeed. 22222frying pan
-
How are you feeling tonight @Cyber Liberty?
About the same, but I took today off. Haven't decided on tomorrow yet. :shrug:
-
About the same, but I took today off. Haven't decided on tomorrow yet. :shrug:
Feel better.
-
About the same, but I took today off. Haven't decided on tomorrow yet. :shrug:
@Cyber Liberty
Boil a pot
Coffee cup or dinner glass
1 finger apple cider vinegar
1 dollop local honey
hot water and worry it up.
sip until gone.
breath out through your nose so the vapors get up into your nasal cavity
As often as needed.
What you really need is fire cider, but it takes a few weeks to cook... one shot of that each day in the winter, and you won't get sick in the first place
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvUjw9AE7mk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvUjw9AE7mk)
-
You could call me an "Idealistic Machiavellian"... pragmatism over virtue. Falling upon ones sword is no way to win a battle.... much less a war.
I favor virtue, but when it becomes apparent that it won't carry the day, I turn to pragmatism.
Without a possibility of winning, virtue becomes the enemy of success.
The cause is more important than it's champions.
-
Moore is up to 74 cents on Predict it.
https://www.predictit.org/Market/3299/Who-will-win-the-2017-US-Senate-special-election-in-Alabama (https://www.predictit.org/Market/3299/Who-will-win-the-2017-US-Senate-special-election-in-Alabama)
That actually worries me because it is irrational exuberance. A more realistic number would be 55-45.
-
Moore is up to 74 cents on Predict it.
https://www.predictit.org/Market/3299/Who-will-win-the-2017-US-Senate-special-election-in-Alabama (https://www.predictit.org/Market/3299/Who-will-win-the-2017-US-Senate-special-election-in-Alabama)
That actually worries me because it is irrational exuberance. A more realistic number would be 55-45.
Shit. That's a lot of money. I wouldn't pay more than a Canadian nickle for him.....
(http://www.canadiangeographic.com/atlas/Images/Glossary/Nickel.jpg)
Roy likes beavers so he won't be offended.
-
@Cyber Liberty
Boil a pot
Coffee cup or dinner glass
1 finger apple cider vinegar
1 dollop local honey
hot water and worry it up.
sip until gone.
breath out through your nose so the vapors get up into your nasal cavity
As often as needed.
What you really need is fire cider, but it takes a few weeks to cook... one shot of that each day in the winter, and you won't get sick in the first place
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvUjw9AE7mk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvUjw9AE7mk)
Thanks!
-
Shit. That's a lot of money. I wouldn't pay more than a Canadian nickle for him.....
(http://www.canadiangeographic.com/atlas/Images/Glossary/Nickel.jpg)
@Frank Cannon
If they're charging you five cents (Canadian or otherwise) . . . you wuz robbed!
-
Roy Moore prosecuted and convicted the brother of the woman who spread the "Moore was banned at the Mall" rumors.
Moore also fined the brother of the Washington Post editor $50,000.00.
OANN kicks @$$!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cXK6zhGZ24 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cXK6zhGZ24)
-
@DCPatriot
No , "'Mogrification".. Trans ort other.
Always an ally with the Judge Roy types I will be. Good men...good ...decent People.
I have shifted to President Trump. His works have allayed my fears. In such movement, Trumpansies(of which many still exist) are less inciteful/foolish by the position they take than the woeful anti-Trumpers.
I am with Ted Cruz..... certainly would vote for him today over Trump, given the chance. But I am a realist, Trump is doing some things no one else could. Particularly, shoving Leftist media up their own asses.
You could call me an "Idealistic Machiavellian"... pragmatism over virtue. Falling upon ones sword is no way to win a battle.... much less a war.
BTW...you still are playing "Pocket Pool" ....... "transmogrification" indeed. 22222frying pan
I totally identify and you stated your position very well.
-
Roy Moore prosecuted and convicted the brother of the woman who spread the "Moore was banned at the Mall" rumors.
Moore also fined the brother of the Washington Post editor $50,000.00.
OANN kicks @$$!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cXK6zhGZ24 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cXK6zhGZ24)
Oh brother?
-
Oh brother?
A Tale of two brothers.
Washington Post Editor (the one that has been running these stories) brother went to Prison and was fined $50,000.00 by Roy Moore for contempt.
Crazy clown hair former cop has sons and a brother in the drug business, and Moore Prosecuted and convicted her brother.
-
A Tale of two brothers.
Washington Post Editor (the one that has been running these stories) brother went to Prison and was fined $50,000.00 by Roy Moore for contempt.
Crazy clown hair former cop has sons and a brother in the drug business, and Moore Prosecuted and convicted her brother.
Well it seems to me that Roy ought to find a few nickles and run ads saying as much so the voters know. Since it is Alabama, I would guess passing out fliers at the nearest Golden Corral or Waffle House would be the best bet.
-
A Tale of two brothers.
Washington Post Editor (the one that has been running these stories) brother went to Prison and was fined $50,000.00 by Roy Moore for contempt.
Crazy clown hair former cop has sons and a brother in the drug business, and Moore Prosecuted and convicted her brother.
Wait. Don't be messing this up with FACTS.
All you need to know is the seriousness of the charge, and that all the players are credible, and that sexually abused women MUST be given the benefit of the doubt - No matter what...
So what does this news have to do with anything?
-
I favor virtue, but when it becomes apparent that it won't carry the day, I turn to pragmatism.
Without a possibility of winning, virtue becomes the enemy of success.
The cause is more important than it's champions.
Be careful what you wish for. Roy Moore in the Senate won't advance the cause, he will discredit it. Evangelicals who back him have been exposed as hypocrites with diminished moral authority. Republicans who denounced Bill Clinton but defend Roy Moore have been exposed as hypocrites with diminished moral authority.
The Democrats will be far happier to see Roy Moore win than to see him defeated. In the Senate, he will tarnish the GOP generally and be a catalyst for Democrat fund-raising and attack ads claiming - with justification - that Republicans are unsympathetic to women. Remember - and this is critically important - Moore's accusers are multiple in number and ON THE RECORD.
Like it or not, the reputation of a cause is part and parcel of the reputation of its champions. As @musiclady says in her sig line - character still matters, it always matters.
This election is, at root, a character test. Will Alabama and national Republicans/conservatives/evangelicals pass it? And what will be the consequences if we don't?
Be careful what you wish for.
-
(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/GOEqR.sG6efgb5rEN04OYg--~B/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD00MDA7dz02MDA-/https://epeak.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/judge-roy-moore-wins-alabama-senate-primary-dealing-a-huge-blow-to-mitch-mcconnell.jpg.cf.jpg)
I just want to take a minute to thank Matt Lauer for removing the spotlight from me, however briefly.....
Since I've seen Moore and the voters of his State insulted here, for the way he Dresses, as their want to be Senator, . . . .
Hartford Ct for years prided itself on being 'The Insurance Capital of The World'
Would that have anything to do with why this guy looks like an Insurance Salesman?
(http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/blum1-540x459.jpg)
http://freebeacon.com/blog/democratic-senator-appears-to-want-kids-to-smoke/ (http://freebeacon.com/blog/democratic-senator-appears-to-want-kids-to-smoke/)
-
Be careful what you wish for. Roy Moore in the Senate won't advance the cause, he will discredit it. Evangelicals who back him have been exposed as hypocrites with diminished moral authority. Republicans who denounced Bill Clinton but defend Roy Moore have been exposed as hypocrites with diminished moral authority.
You stating such is akin to Satan stating Jesus is a hypocrite and has diminished moral authority because He supported Saul of Tarsus.
Lecturing us about 'moral authority' given your posted positions here on this board is the height of hubris hilarity.
-
You stating such is akin to Satan stating Jesus is a hypocrite and has diminished moral authority because He supported Saul of Tarsus.
Lecturing us about 'moral authority' given your posted positions here on this board is the height of hubris hilarity.
That is very eloquent reply to Mr. Head.
Might I add, <**************>
Even if it is redundant.
Do not post personal insults.
- MOD 1
-
Well it seems to me that Roy ought to find a few nickles and run ads saying as much so the voters know. Since it is Alabama, I would guess passing out fliers at the nearest Golden Corral or Waffle House would be the best bet.
The voters in Alabama know all about Roy Moore and have elected him to state wide office several times previously. I think he's got this as well!