The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: SirLinksALot on November 15, 2017, 08:09:56 pm
-
SOURCE: THE FEDERALIST
URL: http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/14/roy-moore-never-conservative/ (http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/14/roy-moore-never-conservative/)
by John Daniel Davidson
On Monday, a fifth woman came forward with allegations that Roy Moore sexually assaulted her when she was 16 years old and he was a prosecutor in Etowah County, Ala. The accusations to date are both plausible and disgusting. When Moore was in his early thirties, he allegedly sought out and sexually assaulted numerous teenage girls, including a 14-year-old.
Moore has denied it, sort of, although his weird interview with Sean Hannity on Friday left the strong impression that the charges are most likely true. Yet it’s hard to understand why voters in Alabama are only just now realizing that he is unfit for office.
They should have known years ago, when his contempt for the rule of law twice got him removed from the Alabama Supreme Court. It’s worth recounting those incidents because they reveal that Moore is no conservative and has little use for the American constitutional order that conservatives hold dear. That he was embraced by a significant number of social conservatives, and still enjoys significant support among some evangelicals, is yet another sign that the conservative movement has lost its way.
Roy Moore Has a History of Contempt for The Law
Moore’s trouble with the law began shortly after he was elected chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court in 2000 and promptly had a 5,280-pound granite monument to the Ten Commandments installed in the state judicial building’s central rotunda. The American Civil Liberties Union and other groups sued, demanding the monument be removed on the grounds that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and was therefore unconstitutional. A federal district judge and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals both agreed, and ordered Moore to remove the monument. He refused, and in November 2003 the Alabama Court of the Judiciary unanimously voted to remove Moore from office, a decision the Supreme Court of Alabama upheld in an April 2004 ruling.
Moore returned to the bench in 2012, winning an election to become, for the second time, chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. At that time, gay marriage was a going concern. When a federal district judge in Mobile struck down Alabama’s marriage laws as unconstitutional in 2015, just months before the U.S. Supreme Court was set to hear Obergefell v. Hodges, Moore declared that the federal judge’s order was not binding in Alabama. He issued a decree prohibiting probate judges in Alabama from issuing same-sex marriage licenses. Relative chaos ensued. Alabama’s attorney general at the time, Luther Strange, told probate judges to consult a lawyer about their obligations.
The Supreme Court’s opinion in Obergefell meant nothing to Moore. Six months after Obergefell, he issued an administrative ruling to lower courts that “Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license” contrary to existing state law. In other words, he was ordering them to defy the Supreme Court. For this, Moore was suspended for the remainder of his term by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary.
Moore’s View of the Constitution Is Anti-American
As a result of these battles, Moore became something a martyr to some social conservatives, who mistakenly believed he was standing athwart history in the name of religious freedom, or moral clarity, or something. Too many conservatives conflated Moore’s crusade against the federal judiciary with the persecution that Christian cake bakers, florists, and pro-life groups now face at the hands of progressive state governments in California and elsewhere.
(EXCERPT) CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE REST....
-
Total unmitigated BS from beginning to end!
-
Other then no name hack writers for a blog, only serial killers have use three names.
-
Total horseshit. The author has no clue what Conservatism actually is beyond voting for someone with an 'R' after their name. That this dufus also declares Moore 'unAmerican' over the charge that Moore defended Alabama law over whatever Washington DC mandates, also showcases that this idiot thinks seig-heiling Statism is somehow patriotic.
-
Total horseshit. The author has no clue what Conservatism actually is beyond voting for someone with an 'R' after their name. That this dufus also declares Moore 'unAmerican' over the charge that Moore defended Alabama law over whatever Washington DC mandates, also showcases that this idiot thinks seig-heiling Statism is somehow patriotic.
By way of Judicial fiat, no less.
-
How can you betray a dead ideology? Conservatism is now an emotional stunted, intellectually retarded, and megalomaniacal spoiled brat. I see no reason why pedophilia can't be part of the exclusive Bannon tent.
Drain the swamp, and refill with sewage.
Winning.
-
How can you betray a dead ideology? Conservatism is now an emotional stunted, intellectually retarded, and megalomaniacal spoiled brat. I see no reason why pedophilia can't be part of the exclusive Bannon tent.
Drain the swamp, and refill with sewage.
Winning.
I would agree with you if only you could raise a bare scintilla of proof.
Too bad all you have is gossip mongers and politically motivated rumor.
-
By way of Judicial fiat, no less.
Like another advocate of tyrannical Statism we know.
Ah well, the idea of a Constitutional Republic lasted just a tad longer than average. With more than half the population demanding Communism or Socialism and the other half fractured in varying forms of individualism or demanding a dictatorship from DC - our fate is already sealed.
Most just refuse to recognize liberty is already gone. They equate 'freedom' and license' to do what they please without consequences as liberty and justice for all.
A society does not last long in that condition.
-
Like another advocate of tyrannical Statism we know.
Ah well, the idea of a Constitutional Republic lasted just a tad longer than average. With more than half the population demanding Communism or Socialism and the other half fractured in varying forms of individualism or demanding a dictatorship from DC - our fate is already sealed.
Most just refuse to recognize liberty is already gone. They equate 'freedom' and license' to do what they please without consequences as liberty and justice for all.
A society does not last long in that condition.
That's right. Justice has flown. And the people cheer. *****rollingeyes*****
-
I would agree with you if only you could raise a bare scintilla of proof.
Too bad all you have is gossip mongers and politically motivated rumor.
There could be video and Republicans will still vote against the rats. Proudly.
-
There could be video and Republicans will still vote against the rats.
Not me.
Were there any sort of evidence I would be leading the charge against Moore.
It is a matter of evidence. Not gossip mongering.
-
Not me.
Were there any sort of evidence I would be leading the charge against Moore.
It is a matter of evidence. Not gossip mongering.
I'd like to know where all the 'dirt' is in the last 40 years that prove without question that Moore is a serial child molester as is being charged.
I mean, these same know-it-alls that have declared him to be so are stunningly silent about the Republican Leadership's efforts to get the judge in Menendez' criminal corruption and sex with underage prostitute scandals to exonerate him. But a guy from their own party whom they hate (mostly due his stance on the Commandments and the bible) - they want him crucified and are happy to shout it with the mobs of media and Democrats they used to hate just a couple of weeks ago.
-
I'd like to know where all the 'dirt' is in the last 40 years that prove without question that Moore is a serial child molester as is being charged.
I mean, these same know-it-alls that have declared him to be so are stunningly silent about the Republican Leadership's efforts to get the judge in Menendez' criminal corruption and sex with underage prostitute scandals to exonerate him. But a guy from their own party whom they hate (mostly due his stance on the Commandments and the bible) - they want him crucified and are happy to shout it with the mobs of media and Democrats they used to hate just a couple of weeks ago.
It is unconscionable. Just like it was with Cruz (has anyone found his harem yet?).
-
I'd like to know where all the 'dirt' is in the last 40 years that prove without question that Moore is a serial child molester as is being charged.
Strawman argument. Any thinking person would have questions (irrational people have made up their mind that this is a McConnell conspiracy) and I have not heard anyone accused him of being a serial child molester...only a duel child molester.
I have questions about the timing and veracity of the charges. I can only listen to them and Moore and form an opinion based on my knowledge and experience. I have known several women who have been sexually abused. They have too frequently refused to come forward because of their shame and sense of powerlessness. I have also known their abusers.
the 14 year old's affidavit is credible...but the 16 year old's press conference was devastatingly familiar and I have much less doubt than I had 2 days ago.
I can't prove it happened...but I know it did.
These women do not look like career political activists who made false claims to win a political victory. They look like victims who finally, and reluctantly, summoned the strength to face the monster/sad pathetic POS who victimized them, his politically blinded supporters, and a powerfully callous alternative media. A media just as corrupt, stupid, sanctimonious, and bias confirming as the MSM, but due to their late development...even less integrity.
lol's for Rush, Hannity, and Fox for supporting a child molester who is fantastic on the issues of guns, immigration, and the 10th Amendment.
It is never too late to repent INVAR. You'll sleep better.
-
Strawman argument. Any thinking person would have questions (irrational people have made up their mind that this is a McConnell conspiracy) and I have not heard anyone accused him of being a serial child molester...only a duel child molester.
I have questions about the timing and veracity of the charges. I can only listen to them and Moore and form an opinion based on my knowledge and experience. I have known several women who have been sexually abused. They have too frequently refused to come forward because of their shame and sense of powerlessness. I have also known their abusers.
the 14 year old's affidavit is credible...but the 16 year old's press conference was devastatingly familiar and I have much less doubt than I had 2 days ago.
I can't prove it happened...but I know it did.
These women do not look like career political activists who made false claims to win a political victory. They look like victims who finally, and reluctantly, summoned the strength to face the monster/sad pathetic POS who victimized them, his politically blinded supporters, and a powerfully callous alternative media. A media just as corrupt, stupid, sanctimonious, and bias confirming as the MSM, but due to their late development...even less integrity.
lol's for Rush, Hannity, and Fox for supporting a child molester who is fantastic on the issues of guns, immigration, and the 10th Amendment.
It is never too late to repent INVAR. You'll sleep better.
I've noticed that YOU and all the rest of those here ready to crucify Roy Moore not saying a SINGLE word about this!
http://americanlookout.com/evening-news-shows-at-abc-cbs-and-nbc-have-given-zero-coverage-to-democrats-corruption-trial/
-
It is never too late to repent INVAR. You'll sleep better.
Repent for what?
Noting the fact this is a politics of personal destruction assassination so as to kill a nominee the Oligarchy said was a'bridge too far' simply because their guy was defeated?
Repent of questioning the veracity of allegations that are absolutely miraculous in their timing after Luther Strange's Campaign failed to find evidence to warrant any accusations during the primaries?
Repent of the fact I think our entire government is corrupt beyond redemption and fully capable of doing this to set the precedent of choosing our rulers for us?
You got another thing coming if you think I should repent of any of that.
It's called discernment.
Something a lot of biased folks who hate a holy roller more than a Democrat caught doing far worse sorely lack.
-
I've noticed that YOU and all the rest of those here ready to crucify Roy Moore not saying a SINGLE word about this
http://americanlookout.com/evening-news-shows-at-abc-cbs-and-nbc-have-given-zero-coverage-to-democrats-corruption-trial/
Impressive defense of a pedophile...the MSN sucks...whatabout the rats. Such wisdom.
I agree the MMS sucks and the rats are bad. I guess that means I must embrace Republican scum.
-
Other then no name hack writers for a blog, only serial killers have use three names.
That's amusing.
Actually, I think the media gives serial killers their middle name in all references to cut down on the number of people who end up sharing the same name. I mean there are probably a fair number of John Gacy's but not so many John Wayne Gacy's.
-
Impressive defense of a pedophile...the MSN sucks...whatabout the rats. Such wisdom.
I agree the MMS sucks and the rats are bad. I guess that means I must embrace Republican scum.
And I am equally impressed given that you don't even know what a pedophile is!
All you DO seem to know how to do is yell "get a rope" when prompted by your establishment masters!
-
Strawman argument. Any thinking person would have questions (irrational people have made up their mind that this is a McConnell conspiracy) and I have not heard anyone accused him of being a serial child molester...only a duel child molester.
I have questions about the timing and veracity of the charges. I can only listen to them and Moore and form an opinion based on my knowledge and experience. I have known several women who have been sexually abused. They have too frequently refused to come forward because of their shame and sense of powerlessness. I have also known their abusers.
the 14 year old's affidavit is credible...but the 16 year old's press conference was devastatingly familiar and I have much less doubt than I had 2 days ago.
I can't prove it happened...but I know it did.
These women do not look like career political activists who made false claims to win a political victory. They look like victims who finally, and reluctantly, summoned the strength to face the monster/sad pathetic POS who victimized them, his politically blinded supporters, and a powerfully callous alternative media. A media just as corrupt, stupid, sanctimonious, and bias confirming as the MSM, but due to their late development...even less integrity.
lol's for Rush, Hannity, and Fox for supporting a child molester who is fantastic on the issues of guns, immigration, and the 10th Amendment.
It is never too late to repent INVAR. You'll sleep better.
Well coached victim performances (Gloria Allred?) seem to trump the stilted and unpolished denials of someone trying to give accurate and truthful answers about something that was supposed to have happened 40 years ago in the face of the unrehearsed prime time televised Inquisition, torches and all.
Not like that Clinton guy who had his denials well polished from years of practice. Not like Hillary getting the softball questions and going over them days in advance. Just adversarial knuckleballs and sliders and the (inevitable) rhetorical traps, something a former deputy DA would be well wary of.
-
Once-Ler wrote:
"There could be video and Republicans will still vote against the rats. Proudly."
I would do so. Proudly.
Before I'd vote for a democrat-communist.
Take your umbrage and.... stuff it.
-
Take your umbrage and.... stuff it.
Bite me.
-
The girl, from all analysis, Corfman, seemed to be at least, 16 (legal then) or 17. I feel for Judge Moore when I see an article calling him a "child molester" or other names on this page. I think Moore may have done some wrong, it might be stalking or flirting, dating, kissing girls 19-17 but this is a far cry from rape or child molesting.
-
The girl, from all analysis, Corfman, seemed to be at least, 16 (legal then) or 17. I feel for Judge Moore when I see an article calling him a "child molester" or other names on this page. I think Moore may have done some wrong, it might be stalking or flirting, dating, kissing girls 19-17 but this is a far cry from rape or child molesting.
I beg your pardon...it looks like Moore may have molested a 16 year old. So sorry for bring it up then.
nevermind.
-
I beg your pardon...it looks like Moore may have molested a 16 year old. So sorry for bring it up then.
nevermind.
Molested her in a non-existent parking lot, yet.
He's that bad.
-
Unless the men on this forum know Moore personally, or have some magical way to know things they have no proof of, none of them can say unequivokally that he is innocent.
And yet they do, with all manner of certaintly and hostility.
At this point NONE of us knows one way or the other what really happened to these girls.
We have reason to doubt the accusers as politically motivated, but we have no PROOF that he is either innocent or guilty.
So I'd suggest that some of you stop hurling epithets at those who disagree, and let's all wait and find out.
KAY???? :shrug:
-
Unless the men on this forum know Moore personally, or have some magical way to know things they have no proof of, none of them can say unequivokally that he is innocent.
And yet they do, with all manner of certaintly and hostility.
At this point NONE of us knows one way or the other what really happened to these girls.
We have reason to doubt the accusers as politically motivated, but we have no PROOF that he is either innocent or guilty.
So I'd suggest that some of you stop hurling epithets at those who disagree, and let's all wait and find out.
KAY???? :shrug:
Totally agree, I'm against the use of blindly throwing out epithets and name-calling.
-
Unless the men on this forum know Moore personally, or have some magical way to know things they have no proof of, none of them can say unequivokally that he is innocent.
And yet they do, with all manner of certaintly and hostility.
At this point NONE of us knows one way or the other what really happened to these girls.
We have reason to doubt the accusers as politically motivated, but we have no PROOF that he is either innocent or guilty.
So I'd suggest that some of you stop hurling epithets at those who disagree, and let's all wait and find out.
KAY???? :shrug:
Except for the fact that innocent until PROVEN guilty is a LONG TERM legal concept that has been a part of this country's law since well before it's founding you might have a legitimate point!
-
Except for the fact that innocent until PROVEN guilty is a LONG TERM legal concept that has been a part of this country's law since well before it's founding you might have a legitimate point!
The legal matter is quite a different point than screaming at people who have doubts of his innocence, and accusing them of BS'ing
There is no way to know one way or the other, so a bit of tolerance of another's perspective is all I'm talking about.
-
The legal matter is quite a different point than screaming at people who have doubts of his innocence, and accusing them of BS'ing
There is no way to know one way or the other, so a bit of tolerance of another's perspective is all I'm talking about.
I have no problem at all with people making their own personal assessment and the voters of the state of Alabama will ultimately decide based on theirs!
-
The legal matter is quite a different point than screaming at people who have doubts of his innocence, and accusing them of BS'ing
There is no way to know one way or the other, so a bit of tolerance of another's perspective is all I'm talking about.
Innocent until proven guilty is not merely for legal matters @musiclady . It is the standard which prevents false accusations.
-
Innocent until proven guilty is not merely for legal matters @musiclady . It is the standard which prevents false accusations.
Again............ my point was the harsh condemnation and misrepresentation of any who dare entertain the thought that he might be guilty.
No one knows.
-
Again............ my point was the harsh condemnation and misrepresentation of any who dare entertain the thought that he might be guilty.
No one knows.
There is plenty of harsh condemnation and misrepresentation of a man who should be seeing the presumption of innocence from posters on a conservative site, but who instead are condemning him with inflammatory rhetoric and distortions of fact.
-
There is plenty of harsh condemnation and misrepresentation of a man who should be seeing the presumption of innocence from posters on a conservative site, but who instead are condemning him with inflammatory rhetoric and distortions of fact.
^^^THIS^^^
-
There is plenty of harsh condemnation and misrepresentation of a man who should be seeing the presumption of innocence from posters on a conservative site, but who instead are condemning him with inflammatory rhetoric and distortions of fact.
That's why BOTH sides need to calm down since neither side knows the facts.
I've seen people assume "facts" presuming innocence that are nothing more than opinion.
What I'm saying is that this is a two way street here, and people like me who haven't drawn conclusions either way are just watching the rumble and wondering why emotions are running so high when NO one knows the truth.
-
Roy Moore Has a History of Contempt for The Law
True. Moore is a crackpot.
-
That's why BOTH sides need to calm down since neither side knows the facts.
I've seen people assume "facts" presuming innocence that are nothing more than opinion.
What I'm saying is that this is a two way street here, and people like me who haven't drawn conclusions either way are just watching the rumble and wondering why emotions are running so high when NO one knows the truth.
@musiclady
The fact presuming innocence is a long and exemplary record toward honor and integrity. That fact is the only fact that is without question, and it should take a helluva lot more to tear it down. That is why it is not a two way street.
A woman thirty years standing on her honor would not be swiftly shaken in my eyes either, if accused of adultery or fornication. The fact is her honor. The evidence has to be enough to offset that, which should be a very high bar.
That's what honor buys you. The presumption of what you are, by way of the life you've lead. If that is no longer the case, there is no reason to remain honorable.
-
True. Moore is a crackpot.
Yep! Until you look at the facts that is!
-
Yep! Until you look at the facts that is!
I'm not addressing the current underage dating issue. Innocent until proven guilty is still in force for me as it should be for everyone.
This turkey was removed not once but twice from his chief justice position.
I can't believe that so many conservatives see him as a hero. He's an assclown.
-
I'm not addressing the current underage dating issue. Innocent until proven guilty is still in force for me as it should be for everyone.
This turkey was removed not once but twice from his chief justice position.
I can't believe that so many conservatives see him as a hero. He's an assclown.
He was doing his job! And upholding the oath he swore when he assumed that office.
-
That's why BOTH sides need to calm down since neither side knows the facts.
I've seen people assume "facts" presuming innocence that are nothing more than opinion.
What I'm saying is that this is a two way street here, and people like me who haven't drawn conclusions either way are just watching the rumble and wondering why emotions are running so high when NO one knows the truth.
There are facts, and there are accounts which have been distorted by selective editing, or being taken out of context. There is a lot of bloviation which can be addressed, and that is a lot of what some of us are doing. We're looking at what is being presented as 'fact' and where that and reality don't flange up, we're pointing that out.
That so much of the 'case' against Moore is being dealt with thus (taken out of context or selectively edited to appear as if it might support some other statement, conflated with irrelevant events involving other people, and a host of pejoratives which do not belong in a rational and factual discussion) in the media, especially, makes me question the veracity of statements being made against him.
Everything is aimed at manipulating public opinion in a trial by media, and not letting facts speak for themselves. When the truth has to be taken out of context or manipulated to make a case against someone, then my Innocent until PROVEN guilty instinct kicks in just that much harder.
-
I'm not addressing the current underage dating issue. Innocent until proven guilty is still in force for me as it should be for everyone.
This turkey was removed not once but twice from his chief justice position.
I can't believe that so many conservatives see him as a hero. He's an assclown.
:amen:
-
There are facts, and there are accounts which have been distorted by selective editing, or being taken out of context. There is a lot of bloviation which can be addressed, and that is a lot of what some of us are doing. We're looking at what is being presented as 'fact' and where that and reality don't flange up, we're pointing that out.
That so much of the 'case' against Moore is being dealt with thus (taken out of context or selectively edited to appear as if it might support some other statement, conflated with irrelevant events involving other people, and a host of pejoratives which do not belong in a rational and factual discussion) in the media, especially, makes me question the veracity of statements being made against him.
Everything is aimed at manipulating public opinion in a trial by media, and not letting facts speak for themselves. When the truth has to be taken out of context or manipulated to make a case against someone, then my Innocent until PROVEN guilty instinct kicks in just that much harder.
@Smokin Joe
I want to step in here, just in case you're referring to the newspaper clipping. I want it on the record that I've done no "selected editing" nor have I tried to misrepresent anything.
You say that Moore should be presumed innocent on a conservative website. I think conservatives should (and most likely do, in all truth) understand that we're not in a court of law, and in such cases outside a court of law, you weigh the information you have, and you make a judgment from that. Waiting for proof is a punt. Either Moore is lying, or all of the family members, friends, the people who worked with him, the women themselves, the cop who kicked him out of the mall, etc.
Moore is a politician. We owe him nothing. And I am tired of denial based on tribalism.
-
@Smokin Joe
I want to step in here, just in case you're referring to the newspaper clipping. I want it on the record that I've done no "selected editing" nor have I tried to misrepresent anything.
You say that Moore should be presumed innocent on a conservative website. I think conservatives should (and most likely do, in all truth) understand that we're not in a court of law, and in such cases outside a court of law, you weigh the information you have, and you make a judgment from that. Waiting for proof is a punt. Either Moore is lying, or all of the family members, friends, the people who worked with him, the women themselves, the cop who kicked him out of the mall, etc.
Moore is a politician. We owe him nothing. And I am tired of denial based on tribalism.
Sorry, whoever posted that clipped bit of one column of that article edited the bejeebers out of the article and took that out of context. I provided the whole article to put those lines back in context, and did not mean that you, personally had done the edit. I'm just disappointed that with a few mouse clicks such things can be found and we can see what was really said, but people are too lazy to look for the whole picture.
According to articles I have seen, He was not banned from any mall. Link any statement to the contrary, please.
If there is a policeman who says he was, please link that and provide a name.
What family members have spoken against him? Link, please.
The people who worked for him rolled their eyes (if you read the ENTIRE clipping), because Moore thought people in the office were dragging things out for profit, and that he seemed to think (in their estimation) he was the only one there who wasn't corrupt. That's a work thing, not sexual misconduct. The two do not equate. If you have information otherwise, please link it. I saw the vapid statements like "oh, I could tell you things, but won't" which amount to crap, especially in a context which relates more to job performance than personal (sexual) conduct.
That leaves two women who claim sexual contact and one who says he allegedly grabbed her ass on the way out the door. The latter seems pretty out of place for behaviour short of a strip bar, and that will get you thrown out of most of those, so I'm not seeing it. One has produced a yearbook with some sketchy possible modifications to an alleged signature. There is back and forth about how much of her divorce case he personally dealt with. And one who produced a lurid, incredibly detailed account of how he had allegedly had contact with her while she was under age.
No one else claims he acted improperly toward them.
There is a lot of imagery and set dressing trying to frame Roy Moore as some sort of sex maniac, a man who cannot restrain some sort of overwhelming urge to engage in sexual contact with unwilling ladies, and even to paint him as a "child molester". What I am seeing is a lot of innuendo, and stuff left to the lurid imaginations of the readers. But little verifiable information, which boils down to a situation where people believe what they want to believe. Most of the set dressing blows away when remarks are put back into context, full comments are read, or information is accurately disclosed.
If you believe the guy who twice lost his job for defying District Judges' orders, once to take down the Ten Commandments, and once to issue gay marriage licenses (against the Alabama Constitution) is some sort of serial "child molester" or sex maniac, That's up to you, but I'm, going to disagree. There has been plenty of time for these allegations to have surfaced, numerous opportunities to make some moral objection to Judge Moore running for an office. That just hasn't happened until it looks like he might actually have a shot (leading in the polls) at being elected as a US Senator. Then, and only then, have the long media knives come out, despite his having been embroiled in numerous political controversies.
When he had beaten Strange and had a double digit poll lead over Jones, then this happened. Sorry, but imho, that stinks on ice.
-
@Smokin Joe
You say that Moore should be presumed innocent on a conservative website. I think conservatives should (and most likely do, in all truth) understand that we're not in a court of law, and in such cases outside a court of law, you weigh the information you have, and you make a judgment from that. Waiting for proof is a punt. Either Moore is lying, or all of the family members, friends, the people who worked with him, the women themselves, the cop who kicked him out of the mall, etc.
@CatherineofAragon
There's your problem, right there. Proof is all that matters, ever. There's a reason for that old adage that a 'ham sandwich can be indicted' - Without proof, without fair proceedings, it is nothing but a witch hunt.
Moore is a politician. We owe him nothing. And I am tired of denial based on tribalism.
WHAT tribalism? Most of those defending Moore are not Republicans. You'll have to come up with something else.
-
He was doing his job! And upholding the oath he swore when he assumed that office.
IN FACT, true to his oath and his word. True to the principle of the thing. And against all odds. That is the direct opposite of 'assclown'.
-
He's an extremist. He was twice removed from office for violating the law. He's a birther and a creationist. He wants to ban Muslims from serving in Congress. He's not an anti-establishment hero. He's a nut.
-
He's an extremist. He was twice removed from office for violating the law. He's a birther and a creationist. He wants to ban Muslims from serving in Congress. He's not an anti-establishment hero. He's a nut.
It seems too many believe that violating the law is upholding it
-
It seems too many believe that violating the law is upholding it
It also seems that a great number who claim to be conservative are actually anything but! The masks are being ripped off very quickly here!
-
Innocent until proven guilty is not merely for legal matters @musiclady . It is the standard which prevents false accusations.
@roamer_1
We make decisions all the time without hard, tangible proof.
If I heard that my husband was cheating on me (and that would never happen, so I feel bad saying it) I wouldn’t assume it was true. But if I started getting confirmation from various sources, with witnesses to back it up, I would have to re-evaluate.
That’s how it’s done outside of court. Moore isn’t trying to stay out of jail; he’s just a politician trying for higher office. Proof isn’t necessary to make a judgment in these cases.
-
Not me.
Were there any sort of evidence I would be leading the charge against Moore.
It is a matter of evidence. Not gossip mongering.
Exactly, I have wrote in candidates for the President going on 3 elections now. If proven against Moore, I know how to write in someone else.
-
Sorry, whoever posted that clipped bit of one column of that article edited the bejeebers out of the article and took that out of context. I provided the whole article to put those lines back in context, and did not mean that you, personally had done the edit. I'm just disappointed that with a few mouse clicks such things can be found and we can see what was really said, but people are too lazy to look for the whole picture.
According to articles I have seen, He was not banned from any mall. Link any statement to the contrary, please.
If there is a policeman who says he was, please link that and provide a name.
What family members have spoken against him? Link, please.
The people who worked for him rolled their eyes (if you read the ENTIRE clipping), because Moore thought people in the office were dragging things out for profit, and that he seemed to think (in their estimation) he was the only one there who wasn't corrupt. That's a work thing, not sexual misconduct. The two do not equate. If you have information otherwise, please link it. I saw the vapid statements like "oh, I could tell you things, but won't" which amount to crap, especially in a context which relates more to job performance than personal (sexual) conduct.
That leaves two women who claim sexual contact and one who says he allegedly grabbed her ass on the way out the door. The latter seems pretty out of place for behaviour short of a strip bar, and that will get you thrown out of most of those, so I'm not seeing it. One has produced a yearbook with some sketchy possible modifications to an alleged signature. There is back and forth about how much of her divorce case he personally dealt with. And one who produced a lurid, incredibly detailed account of how he had allegedly had contact with her while she was under age.
No one else claims he acted improperly toward them.
There is a lot of imagery and set dressing trying to frame Roy Moore as some sort of sex maniac, a man who cannot restrain some sort of overwhelming urge to engage in sexual contact with unwilling ladies, and even to paint him as a "child molester". What I am seeing is a lot of innuendo, and stuff left to the lurid imaginations of the readers. But little verifiable information, which boils down to a situation where people believe what they want to believe. Most of the set dressing blows away when remarks are put back into context, full comments are read, or information is accurately disclosed.
If you believe the guy who twice lost his job for defying District Judges' orders, once to take down the Ten Commandments, and once to issue gay marriage licenses (against the Alabama Constitution) is some sort of serial "child molester" or sex maniac, That's up to you, but I'm, going to disagree. There has been plenty of time for these allegations to have surfaced, numerous opportunities to make some moral objection to Judge Moore running for an office. That just hasn't happened until it looks like he might actually have a shot (leading in the polls) at being elected as a US Senator. Then, and only then, have the long media knives come out, despite his having been embroiled in numerous political controversies.
When he had beaten Strange and had a double digit poll lead over Jones, then this happened. Sorry, but imho, that stinks on ice.
Yep, the Mall allegations were pretty out there, CNN interviews some guy that was a kid working in a record store and he stammers that Roy was on some ban list and a police officer named JD told him this. YouTube is suddenly flooded with stories about it...every fake YT news account possible does a video with a fake computer voice spamming it. In the meanwhile, the local Fox station tracks down the long time Mall manager for those years (1981-mid 90s) and he says Roy Moore was not on any ban list whatsoever. Yet the liberal media runs with one story and not the other. Wonder why?
http://www.wbrc.com/clip/13905910/former-gadsden-mall-manager-says-roy-moore-wasnt-banned
@Smokin Joe
-
Yep, the Mall allegations were pretty out there, CNN interviews some guy that was a kid working in a record store and he stammers that Roy was on some ban list and a police officer named JD told him this. YouTube is suddenly flooded with stories about it...every fake YT news account possible does a video with a fake computer voice spamming it. In the meanwhile, the local Fox station tracks down the long time Mall manager for those years (1981-mid 90s) and he says Roy Moore was not on any ban list whatsoever. Yet the liberal media runs with one story and not the other. Wonder why?
http://www.wbrc.com/clip/13905910/former-gadsden-mall-manager-says-roy-moore-wasnt-banned
@Smokin Joe
Thanks! That was the link I was looking for.
There have been lots of allegations, every one of which is presented in the worst possible light by the media, even with distortions as if they added weight to allegations of wrongdoing. I keep hearing "five" but in reality there are two, maybe a third who claims he grabbed her ass as she was leaving his office. That seems unlikely to me, especially in the office as she is walking out the door.
Only one alleges anything untoward while she was underage, not five women.
-
I've noticed that YOU and all the rest of those here ready to crucify Roy Moore not saying a SINGLE word about this!
http://americanlookout.com/evening-news-shows-at-abc-cbs-and-nbc-have-given-zero-coverage-to-democrats-corruption-trial/
You should post the TBR link where you posted it, @Bigun.
-
How can you betray a dead ideology? Conservatism is now an emotional stunted, intellectually retarded, and megalomaniacal spoiled brat. I see no reason why pedophilia can't be part of the exclusive Bannon tent.
Drain the swamp, and refill with sewage.
Winning.
Then continue to yell and scream..
-
He's an extremist. He was twice removed from office for violating the law. He's a birther and a creationist. He wants to ban Muslims from serving in Congress. He's not an anti-establishment hero. He's a nut.
:amen:
-
Also Roy Moore did speak at a Council of Conservative Citizens (which is a white supremacist group) gathering.
-
Sorry, whoever posted that clipped bit of one column of that article edited the bejeebers out of the article and took that out of context. I provided the whole article to put those lines back in context, and did not mean that you, personally had done the edit. I'm just disappointed that with a few mouse clicks such things can be found and we can see what was really said, but people are too lazy to look for the whole picture.
According to articles I have seen, He was not banned from any mall. Link any statement to the contrary, please.
If there is a policeman who says he was, please link that and provide a name.
What family members have spoken against him? Link, please.
The people who worked for him rolled their eyes (if you read the ENTIRE clipping), because Moore thought people in the office were dragging things out for profit, and that he seemed to think (in their estimation) he was the only one there who wasn't corrupt. That's a work thing, not sexual misconduct. The two do not equate. If you have information otherwise, please link it. I saw the vapid statements like "oh, I could tell you things, but won't" which amount to crap, especially in a context which relates more to job performance than personal (sexual) conduct.
That leaves two women who claim sexual contact and one who says he allegedly grabbed her ass on the way out the door. The latter seems pretty out of place for behaviour short of a strip bar, and that will get you thrown out of most of those, so I'm not seeing it. One has produced a yearbook with some sketchy possible modifications to an alleged signature. There is back and forth about how much of her divorce case he personally dealt with. And one who produced a lurid, incredibly detailed account of how he had allegedly had contact with her while she was under age.
No one else claims he acted improperly toward them.
There is a lot of imagery and set dressing trying to frame Roy Moore as some sort of sex maniac, a man who cannot restrain some sort of overwhelming urge to engage in sexual contact with unwilling ladies, and even to paint him as a "child molester". What I am seeing is a lot of innuendo, and stuff left to the lurid imaginations of the readers. But little verifiable information, which boils down to a situation where people believe what they want to believe. Most of the set dressing blows away when remarks are put back into context, full comments are read, or information is accurately disclosed.
If you believe the guy who twice lost his job for defying District Judges' orders, once to take down the Ten Commandments, and once to issue gay marriage licenses (against the Alabama Constitution) is some sort of serial "child molester" or sex maniac, That's up to you, but I'm, going to disagree. There has been plenty of time for these allegations to have surfaced, numerous opportunities to make some moral objection to Judge Moore running for an office. That just hasn't happened until it looks like he might actually have a shot (leading in the polls) at being elected as a US Senator. Then, and only then, have the long media knives come out, despite his having been embroiled in numerous political controversies.
When he had beaten Strange and had a double digit poll lead over Jones, then this happened. Sorry, but imho, that stinks on ice.
@Smokin Joe
Can you ping me if you're replying to me? Thanks.
Sorry, but nothing was taken out of context and nothing was deceptively edited. Ben Shapiro retweeted the clipping from Timothy Burke. I scrolled down Burke's timeline; instead of linking to the entire article, he posted the whole thing.
However, even if he had posted only the clipping, it wouldn't have mattered. Absolutely nothing in the rest of the article contradicted or nullified the clipping itself.
(https://i.imgur.com/Cd75w84.jpg)
You're asking me for the most basic of facts which have not, by the way, been refuted in any way. They're available all over the place at just about any news source you could want; I don't even understand how you could be unfamiliar with them. I told you earlier I'm not going to do your research for you.
However, it's Sunday, so:
https://www.snopes.com/2017/11/17/roy-moore-banned-mall-harassing-teen-girls/
Names included.
(https://www.snopes.com/2017/11/17/roy-moore-banned-mall-harassing-teen-girls/
Names included.)
-
Thanks! That was the link I was looking for.
There have been lots of allegations, every one of which is presented in the worst possible light by the media, even with distortions as if they added weight to allegations of wrongdoing. I keep hearing "five" but in reality there are two, maybe a third who claims he grabbed her ass as she was leaving his office. That seems unlikely to me, especially in the office as she is walking out the door.
Only one alleges anything untoward while she was underage, not five women.
@Smokin Joe
@Sighlass
Except this guy started work at the mall in the '80s. Moore was cruising for teenagers in the '70s. Also, he says Moore wasn't banned "as far as he knows." And, as the article I just linked in my previous post states, mall records don't go back that far.
-
He also falsely claims that whole communities in Illinois and Indiana are living under Islamic Sharia Law. As PolitiFact notes "it is legally impossible for any community in the United States to be ‘under Sharia law’ because it would have to be enacted as the law of the state, and that is unconstitutional under the First Amendment."
Last time I checked, The ninth commandment says, You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (Exodus 20:16). Maybe Mr Moore should have practiced in what he preached.
-
Molested her in a non-existent parking lot, yet.
non-existent parking lot ???
-
non-existent parking lot ???
The molested 16 yr old reportedly said it happened in the parking lot behind where she worked, but supposedly there is no such lot.
-
The molested 16 yr old reportedly said it happened in the parking lot behind where she worked, but supposedly there is no such lot.
OK thanks, that kind of blows her Moore story all to hell.
-
:amen:
And yet he's likely the next Senator from Alabama.
:shrug:
-
The molested 16 yr old reportedly said it happened in the parking lot behind where she worked, but supposedly there is no such lot.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOneD4bWkAEagaW.jpg)
Listings for a restaurant called Old Hickory House Bar B Que — no fake-archaic “e” — show an address at 1715 U.S. 431 (which, in Gadsden, is identical to East Meighan Blvd.) and say it was established in 2001. The phone number for the restaurant has been disconnected, and it’s unclear if it is still open. But it turns out that Gadsden has had more than one restaurant with that name over the years. William Thornton, a reporter for AL.com, dug up a city directory of Gadsden from 1978, which lists a restaurant called . . . Olde Hickory House, address 305 East Meighan Blvd:
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/453723/olde-hickory-houses
Like a lot of issues in this case, things are not always straightforward.
It's not clear enough, if that is the "Olde Hickory House" of the 1970s or the "Old Hickory House" of the 2000s. I haven't read that the '70s Hickory House did not have such a parking lot behind it, in what I would envision as a dusty parking lot behind the restaurant.
I'd like to see an exact quote in a story that such a parking lot did not exist at the '70s restuarant.
-
OK thanks, that kind of blows her Moore story all to hell.
@jpsb
@skeeter
Lord have mercy, where are you getting your news? That was one of the garbage lies Moore's wife was spreading all over Facebook.
"However, contemporary records show it did exist.
A 1978 City Directory for the Gadsden-Attalla area in the reference room at the Gadsden Public Library lists the restaurant, The Olde Hickory House, as being at 305 East Meighan Boulevard."
Numerous sources have refuted this lie. The Moores really do act innocent, don't they.
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/moore_defenders_claim_gadsden.html (http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/moore_defenders_claim_gadsden.html)
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/11/14/desperate-roy-moores-wife-keeps-spreading-fake-news-defenses-of-her-husband-which-doesnt-look-good-for-him-n2409408
(https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/11/14/desperate-roy-moores-wife-keeps-spreading-fake-news-defenses-of-her-husband-which-doesnt-look-good-for-him-n2409408)
http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/14/moores-wife-spreads-fake-news-about-restaurant-where-alleged-assault-happened/ (http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/14/moores-wife-spreads-fake-news-about-restaurant-where-alleged-assault-happened/)
-
Innocent until proven guilty is not merely for legal matters @musiclady . It is the standard which prevents false accusations.
Baloney. It’s not even for all legal matters, only criminal matters.
-
@Smokin Joe
@Sighlass
Except this guy started work at the mall in the '80s. Moore was cruising for teenagers in the '70s. Also, he says Moore wasn't banned "as far as he knows." And, as the article I just linked in my previous post states, mall records don't go back that far.
Yes, the EXACT years the record fellow that said he worked at the mall that claimed Roy was on a list. The very same years as a matter of fact... 1981-85 is what the record store fellow said he worked (in a record store) at the mall. Again, if claiming one fellow as a reliable source, you can not claim the other unreliable since he worked (at a more in the know position as Mall manager) during the same years.
Here is the video of the fellow at CNN saying the Auburn Record fellow worked from 1981-85 (and I will do your homework for you since you mentioned not liking to do it and also say it is around 30 seconds into the clip).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNIGUgmKGSk
If the mall manager (who's job it would be to know banned people) is not a good source for those years (He worked as Mall manager from 1981 to 1996), why is your man (source) not given the same consideration of being a reliable source? Even Snopes has said it was based on a "rumor".... then it tries to hide that revelation by linking to other allegations (by the women) that are not even related to the question of whether Roy was banned or not.
@Smokin Joe @CatherineofAragon
Also, it would seem that a person banned in 1979 would still be banned in 1981 unless it was known they had died.
-
Baloney. It’s not even for all legal matters, only criminal matters.
Then how does one protect the system from false witness? All y'all are taught to suspend disbelief every time you turn on a tv or go to the show. If you think yourself capable of winnowing gossip to discern truth, you're flat wrong. There is little truth in gossip.
That is why a free people relies upon facts, and facts derive from evidence.
-
@Smokin Joe
@Sighlass
Except this guy started work at the mall in the '80s. Moore was cruising for teenagers in the '70s. Also, he says Moore wasn't banned "as far as he knows." And, as the article I just linked in my previous post states, mall records don't go back that far.
Yeah I got all that at the link.
Right.
The big 404 on a Snopes page. "either there’s a typo in your link or we just haven’t written that article yet"
-
Yes, the EXACT years the record fellow that said he worked at the mall that claimed Roy was on a list. The very same years as a matter of fact... 1981-85 is what the record store fellow said he worked (in a record store) at the mall. Again, if claiming one fellow as a reliable source, you can not claim the other unreliable since he worked (at a more in the know position as Mall manager) during the same years.
Here is the video of the fellow at CNN saying the Auburn Record fellow worked from 1981-85 (and I will do your homework for you since you mentioned not liking to do it and also say it is around 30 seconds into the clip).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNIGUgmKGSk
If the mall manager (who's job it would be to know banned people) is not a good source for those years (He worked as Mall manager from 1981 to 1996), why is your man (source) not given the same consideration of being a reliable source? Even Snopes has said it was based on a "rumor".... then it tries to hide that revelation by linking to other allegations (by the women) that are not even related to the question of whether Roy was banned or not.
@Smokin Joe @CatherineofAragon
Also, it would seem that a person banned in 1979 would still be banned in 1981 unless it was known they had died.
@Sighlass
I don’t even know what you’re talking about when you say “my man” and “my source.” These are the facts: the manager who made this claim did not work there when Moore was cruising for teenagers. He claims Moore wasn’t banned “to the best of his knowledge”, which obviously leaves something to be desired.
A record store employee and a cop—-both named sources—-say he was banned, along with a mall employee who reported him for creeping on her. And it seems to have been general knowledge among the community.
Why should I believe the manager who didn’t even work there at the time and who qualified his statement because he isn’t sure?
-
Yeah I got all that at the link.
Right.
The big 404 on a Snopes page. "either there’s a typo in your link or we just haven’t written that article yet"
@Smokin Joe
.....What?
I have no idea what you just said.
-
@Smokin Joe
.....What?
I have no idea what you just said.
Click on your link, then. 404 PAGE not found, with what I quoted. The snopes page you linked (that article) does not exist.
-
@roamer_1
We make decisions all the time without hard, tangible proof.
@CatherineofAragon
No, we don't.
If I heard that my husband was cheating on me (and that would never happen, so I feel bad saying it) I wouldn’t assume it was true. But if I started getting confirmation from various sources, with witnesses to back it up, I would have to re-evaluate.
My buddy's wife was thus accused. I, among others at that particular meeting of minds, told him to hold his piece until he had hard evidence to back it up. I didn't believe the rumor being spread, and I didn't see how the main accuser's husband had the ability to meet her for illicit rendezvous... She's a good woman, and busy, with children around her almost all the time... It finally played out as untrue, but had he been fool enough to believe the bullshit, he'd have destroyed his marriage over nothing. No, we don't make decisions without good evidence to back them up.
That’s how it’s done outside of court. Moore isn’t trying to stay out of jail; he’s just a politician trying for higher office. Proof isn’t necessary to make a judgment in these cases.
It is if you want good men to bother to run for office.
-
Click on your link, then. 404 PAGE not found, with what I quoted. The snopes page you linked (that article) does not exist.
@Smokin Joe
Yes, it is. I read it earlier, and I just read it again.
https://www.snopes.com/2017/11/17/roy-moore-banned-mall-harassing-teen-girls/ (https://www.snopes.com/2017/11/17/roy-moore-banned-mall-harassing-teen-girls/)
-
Exactly, I have wrote in candidates for the President going on 3 elections now. If proven against Moore, I know how to write in someone else.
That's right - Me too.
-
Why should I believe the manager who didn’t even work there at the time and who qualified his statement because he isn’t sure?
@CatherineofAragon
Because being unsure of forty year old memories sounds a helluva lot more true than folks speaking with uncanny recollection, that far past.
-
@CatherineofAragon
Because being unsure of forty year old memories sounds a helluva lot more true than folks speaking with uncanny recollection, that far past.
@roamer_1
Disagree. This guy is fishing. The rest of them would certainly remember a DA being banned from the mall, unless they're all senile.
-
@CatherineofAragon
Because being unsure of forty year old memories sounds a helluva lot more true than folks speaking with uncanny recollection, that far past.
There goes the "if it's 40 years ago, it can't be remembered" stuff again.
Our oldest daughter was born 38 years ago, and I remember it like yesterday.
BIG things stick in your head. Being assaulted is a BIG thing.
You can dismiss her memory if you want, but there is no factual accuracy in your doing so.
You can't draw any truthful conclusions based on the 40 year assumption you're making.
-
@Smokin Joe
Yes, it is. I read it earlier, and I just read it again.
https://www.snopes.com/2017/11/17/roy-moore-banned-mall-harassing-teen-girls/ (https://www.snopes.com/2017/11/17/roy-moore-banned-mall-harassing-teen-girls/)
@CatherineofAragon Thank You. That link works, the one in post 57 did not and produced This (https://www.snopes.com/2017/11/17/roy-moore-banned-mall-harassing-teen-girls/%3Cbr%20/%3E%3Cbr%20/%3ENames%20included.) and still does as of this posting.
-
There goes the "if it's 40 years ago, it can't be remembered" stuff again.
Our oldest daughter was born 38 years ago, and I remember it like yesterday.
BIG things stick in your head. Being assaulted is a BIG thing.
You can dismiss her memory if you want, but there is no factual accuracy in your doing so.
You can't draw any truthful conclusions based on the 40 year assumption you're making.
@musiclady
I am not talking about the accusers. I am talking about the salacious gossip in support of him being banned from the mall.
I sure as hell wouldn't remember an ADA being banned from a mall forty years ago, and certainly not with the specificity these people seem to be blessed with.
I CAN, however, lean pretty heavily on the statements of management and security from that era, because they would have looked at his picture daily on the banned list - And no doubt recall an ADA trying to get permission to be allowed back into the mall at several occasions.
That's how banned lists work. I know from experience.
-
@CatherineofAragon Thank You. That link works, the one in post 57 did not and produced This (https://www.snopes.com/2017/11/17/roy-moore-banned-mall-harassing-teen-girls/%3Cbr%20/%3E%3Cbr%20/%3ENames%20included.) and still does as of this posting.
Okay, I followed snopes to a New Yorker article https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/locals-were-troubled-by-roy-moores-interactions-with-teen-girls-at-the-gadsden-mall (https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/locals-were-troubled-by-roy-moores-interactions-with-teen-girls-at-the-gadsden-mall) and followed that to the last source in the line: https://www.newamericanjournal.net/2017/11/politics-makes-strange-bedfellows-but-jesus-not-this/ (https://www.newamericanjournal.net/2017/11/politics-makes-strange-bedfellows-but-jesus-not-this/) which state unequivocally that BREAKING NEWS: Sources tell me Moore was actually banned from the Gadsden Mall and the YMCA for his inappropriate behavior of soliciting sex from young girls. If Moore keeps lying, that story will soon come out in a big way too.
Meh, those pesky "sources" again.
Of course there is a prominent Doug Jones ad in the right sidebar.
Read his comments to the one person who had the temerity to disagree with the writer.
-
@musiclady
I am not talking about the accusers. I am talking about the salacious gossip in support of him being banned from the mall.
I sure as hell wouldn't remember an ADA being banned from a mall forty years ago, and certainly not with the specificity these people seem to be blessed with.
I CAN, however, lean pretty heavily on the statements of management and security from that era, because they would have looked at his picture daily on the banned list - And no doubt recall an ADA trying to get permission to be allowed back into the mall at several occasions.
That's how banned lists work. I know from experience.
Gotcha! Sorry about that!
(I've just seen that 40 year stuff bandied about so much as some sort of proof, that I reacted to it without reading thoroughly).
-
@roamer_1
Disagree. This guy is fishing. The rest of them would certainly remember a DA being banned from the mall, unless they're all senile.
@CatherineofAragon
Riiight. the guy who undoubtedly is THE guy he'd have to go to, at an eyeball sit-down meeting, to be taken off the banned list is not going to recall banning him or letting him back in, but some record store guy, incidental to any procedure does.
That's just not credible.
-
Gotcha! Sorry about that!
(I've just seen that 40 year stuff bandied about so much as some sort of proof, that I reacted to it without reading thoroughly).
The relevance of the 40 years isn't that the memories might be flawed (although that could go either way), but that through multiple political campaigns and over 4 decades this hasn't been brought up.
While certainly odd, I do not see it as proof either way.
Memories that old are a funny thing. Some are crisp and clear, usually because a great deal of adrenaline was involved. I have some like that, and there are other, more mundane events I have little recollection of. Some things just don't stand out. But I have heard people relate events from our mutual past to me and the accounts are not the same as my recollections (even if they placed me in a better light than my own recollection of events).
So, even individual memories are not completely reliable in all cases, any more than eyewitness testimony, those memories can be altered from initial perception, being re-remembered/retold in slightly different iterations, even discussion with others which might cause a story to be remembered in an embellished form or to depart from fact. Even the recollection of participants involved can change over time, as a friend had placed me at several events in decades past which I know I had not been present at. The more people who independently recall a specific event or person, the more likely that is to be correct or close to being correct, provided they haven't discussed that among themselves, in which discussion stories (and the memory of them) tend to blend.
-
The relevance of the 40 years isn't that the memories might be flawed (although that could go either way), but that through multiple political campaigns and over 4 decades this hasn't been brought up.
While certainly odd, I do not see it as proof either way.
Memories that old are a funny thing. Some are crisp and clear, usually because a great deal of adrenaline was involved. I have some like that, and there are other, more mundane events I have little recollection of. Some things just don't stand out. But I have heard people relate events from our mutual past to me and the accounts are not the same as my recollections (even if they placed me in a better light than my own recollection of events).
So, even individual memories are not completely reliable in all cases, any more than eyewitness testimony, those memories can be altered from initial perception, being re-remembered/retold in slightly different iterations, even discussion with others which might cause a story to be remembered in an embellished form or to depart from fact. Even the recollection of participants involved can change over time, as a friend had placed me at several events in decades past which I know I had not been present at. The more people who independently recall a specific event or person, the more likely that is to be correct or close to being correct, provided they haven't discussed that among themselves, in which discussion stories (and the memory of them) tend to blend.
The only problem I have with the use of the 40 year old stuff, is the immediate dismissal of the possibility of guilt because the memories are 40 years old and cannot therefore be valid.
As long as it's qualified, I don't have a problem with it.
But it hasn't been, so I do......
-
The only problem I have with the use of the 40 year old stuff, is the immediate dismissal of the possibility of guilt because the memories are 40 years old and cannot therefore be valid.
As long as it's qualified, I don't have a problem with it.
But it hasn't been, so I do......
That leaves the big question of "Why now?" Where were any of these allegations in the previous elections?
-
That leaves the big question of "Why now?" Where were any of these allegations in the previous elections?
That's a legit question, but still can't be used as an assumption that these women aren't telling the truth.
That is the only point I'm making here.
40 year old memories?? Right before an election?? Must be all lies, right??
Nope.
-
That's a legit question, but still can't be used as an assumption that these women aren't telling the truth.
That is the only point I'm making here.
40 year old memories?? Right before an election?? Must be all lies, right??
Nope.
But questionable when there have been a few elections in between and these haven't surfaced.
-
But questionable when there have been a few elections in between and these haven't surfaced.
Do you think it is possible that victims of rape saw what happened to women, who President Clinton raped and assaulted, and they decided it was the wrong climate to be brave? Perhaps they recently saw widespread condemnation of Weinstien, and others predators, and thought the GOP might have evolved past "More women are sexual predators than men," and "Women are chasing young boys up and down the road, but we don't hear about that because it's not PC." http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/361060-alabama-pastor-supporting-moore-more-women-are-sexual-predators-than-men
Well, I got one thing to say to those ladies, as I unbuckle my belt..."Today, just ain't your day."
-
Folks, we have enough threads elsewhere that discusses the allegations against Roy Moore.
I really want this thread to be a discussion of Roy Moore's political record instead of rehashing the accusations of these women.
Notice that the accusation is that he is NOT really conservative ( ignore the women for now ).
How accurate is this ? THAT is the purpose of my posting this thread.
-
Folks, we have enough threads elsewhere that discusses the allegations against Roy Moore.
I really want this thread to be a discussion of Roy Moore's political record instead of rehashing the accusations of these women.
Notice that the accusation is that he is NOT really conservative ( ignore the women for now ).
How accurate is this ? THAT is the purpose of my posting this thread.
Of course Roy Moore is no conservative, in the American sense of that term. He has demonstrated contempt for the rule of law on at least two occasions - in his capacity as a judge of the Alabama Supreme Court! - sufficiently serious to warrant his removal. The rule of law in a Constitutional Republic such as ours is, or should be, a bedrock principle of conservatism.
Moore is a nihilist, picking and choosing what laws he will obey based on his self-styled view of what his "God" demands. He's the equivalent of a radical Muslim seeking to substitute shariah law for that of the Constitution and its guarantee of equal protection. His way of thinking is disturbing and profoundly un-American, and his willingness to ignore his oath of office makes him unfit for the Senate.
-
Folks, we have enough threads elsewhere that discusses the allegations against Roy Moore.
I really want this thread to be a discussion of Roy Moore's political record instead of rehashing the accusations of these women.
Notice that the accusation is that he is NOT really conservative ( ignore the women for now ).
How accurate is this ? THAT is the purpose of my posting this thread.
Good luck with keeping ANY thread here on topic! Just sayin!
-
Of course Roy Moore is no conservative, in the American sense of that term. He has demonstrated contempt for the rule of law on at least two occasions
You were already proven to be totally and completely wrong on this stupid and incessant talking-point assertion of yours by numerous members of this board in whom you have REFUSED to answer. You were asked specifically which "laws" exactly did Roy Moore break and thereby demonstrated 'contempt'. You kept going back to court ruling precedent by a federal district judge as "law" and when shown your error, you (as always) refused to acknowledge to push your liberal Leftist claptrap bullshit.
Moore is a nihilist
And you are a Stalinist. Next accusation please.
picking and choosing what laws he will obey based on his self-styled view of what his "God" demands.
You do the same when it comes to your professed 'Christianity' and your peculiar Leftist view of the Constitution. Project much?
He's the equivalent of a radical Muslim seeking to substitute shariah law for that of the Constitution and its guarantee of equal protection. His way of thinking is disturbing and profoundly un-American, and his willingness to ignore his oath of office makes him unfit for the Senate.
That's what you and the Left want everyone to believe, that Biblically-adherent Christians who will not surrender their beliefs are a danger to the state and the people.
This is why I say that people like you are the very reason we have a Second Amendment to begin with - because people like you, given the power - would do as Nero did and worse, for similarly stated reasons as you just provided.
You are an enemy to everything our Founders established.
-
But questionable when there have been a few elections in between and these haven't surfaced.
Agreed.
-
This is why I say that people like you are the very reason we have a Second Amendment to begin with
So you're saying I should be shot for my beliefs. Got it. *****rollingeyes*****
-
So you're saying I should be shot for my beliefs. Got it.
You've been busy suggesting biblical Christians who live their faith like Cake Bakers and people like Moore should be punished and exterminated.
If you want to act like a tyrant to impose tyranny - you should be afraid of the Second Amendment.
Clearly you are.
Good.