WWTBAM Bored

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

What should disqualify Moore from public office is that he thinks his probably wrong interpretation of his religion should supersede the law.

Sadly, for many judges, their political and social justice beliefs have become their religion, and they have made many decisions which have superceded the laws passed by the legislative branches. It is called being an activist judge. Yes, that accusation can be applied to Moore, but to be fair, you need to apply it to many other judges on both sides. The left is not known for being fair, however.

My problem with your analysis, flock, is that you define pretty much any decision you disagree with as coming from an activist judge.

Moreover, Moore's conduct was different in kind. Not once, but twice, he defied lawful orders of a federal court. State judges don't get to do that. Not ever. --Bob

That's flock's analysis Bob is responding to, not Spock's.

ghostjmf wrote:That's flock's analysis Bob is responding to, not Spock's.

Thanks, ghost. I've fixed it. --Bob

The choice in the Alabama Senate race:

Uh oh.... it looks like SSS's account got hijacked by Bob Juch. Would you like me to help you get it back?

lb13

As I thought, it didn't take long for another woman to come forward and accuse Moore of sexual assault when she was a teenager. Predators like Moore, Spacey, and Weinstein don't just do things like this once or twice; they keep doing it. We haven't heard the last of these allegations.

silverscreenselect wrote:As I thought, it didn't take long for another woman to come forward and accuse Moore of sexual assault when she was a teenager. Predators like Moore, Spacey, and Weinstein don't just do things like this once or twice; they keep doing it. We haven't heard the last of these allegations.

Your giddiness for more than one child possibly being molested is noted. How many do you want to have been molested? 3? 4? 10?

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:As I thought, it didn't take long for another woman to come forward and accuse Moore of sexual assault when she was a teenager. Predators like Moore, Spacey, and Weinstein don't just do things like this once or twice; they keep doing it. We haven't heard the last of these allegations.

Your giddiness for more than one child possibly being molested is noted. How many do you want to have been molested? 3? 4? 10?

I'm not sss, but what I want is for all of those who have already been molested to be able to come forward free from fear of the public trashing that will undoubtedly result. I would hope you want the same. And deliberately misinterpreting what sss is saying isn't scoring any points.

Mitch McConnell, by the way, has now publicly said that he believes the women and that Moore should withdraw. Let's hope the voters of Alabama feel the same way. If not, I was apparently mistaken about the Senate's ability to exclude him by a majority vote. But the Senate can definitely expel him with a 2/3 vote. --Bob

By the way, given your views on the treatment of an accused defendant by the Louisiana Supreme Court, I wonder what you think about this dissent by Moore when he was on the Alabama Supreme Court. He was the only Justice (out of 9) who would have found that a 17-year-old convicted of raping a 4-year-old child didn't do so via forcible compulsion. --Bob

silverscreenselect wrote:As I thought, it didn't take long for another woman to come forward and accuse Moore of sexual assault when she was a teenager. Predators like Moore, Spacey, and Weinstein don't just do things like this once or twice; they keep doing it. We haven't heard the last of these allegations.

Five now.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:As I thought, it didn't take long for another woman to come forward and accuse Moore of sexual assault when she was a teenager. Predators like Moore, Spacey, and Weinstein don't just do things like this once or twice; they keep doing it. We haven't heard the last of these allegations.

Your giddiness for more than one child possibly being molested is noted. How many do you want to have been molested? 3? 4? 10?

The "giddiness" is the fact that each additional person who comes forward makes it that much more difficult for Moore and his apologists to claim that's it's fake, invented, a witch hunt, a Democrat/media plot, a money grubber, etc.

Not commenting on Moore and I don't have time to go through the thread, but it brings to mind a (former) couple with kids roughly the same age as ours at school. The woman is very attractive.

He graduated in about 1980 and she graduated in 1995. They got married the summer she graduated from high school. How does that even happen? They were probably neighbors, but did he take her to prom?

She left him a couple of years ago, not sure how faithful she had been. As they say-
"We are only as faithful as our options allow."

He had been injured in a plane crash in the early 80's and was aging quickly now-that was probably the catalyst that broke the camel's back as far as her leaving. Did I mention that she is attractive?

Senator Isakson has publicly commented that it's better to have a child molester in the Senate than a Democrat. That, of course, is precisely what's wrong with the country, and in particular the Republican Party, right now. And sss must be so proud of his senator right now. --Bob

Every time a mass shooting happens-we are supposed to have a conversation about guns and we are always supposed to have a conversation about race. It might be fun if we could broaden this conversation.

I can't help but think of the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of young teenage girls in the 90% Democrat voting areas like Detroit, Baltimore-Indian Reservations etc-that are molested by their "Ghetto/Reservation uncles."

The left expects nothing better for these poor girls than for the cycle to continue.

Spock wrote:Every time a mass shooting happens-we are supposed to have a conversation about guns and we are always supposed to have a conversation about race. It might be fun if we could broaden this conversation.

I can't help but think of the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of young teenage girls in the 90% Democrat voting areas like Detroit, Baltimore-Indian Reservations etc-that are molested by their "Ghetto/Reservation uncles."

The left expects nothing better for these poor girls than for the cycle to continue.

Nor do they consider under-age prostitutes in the Dominican Republic worthy of their concern.

Molestation isn't a feature of ghettoes & non-existent in lilly-white communities. Its either complete ignorance or willful twisting of evidence to claim this.

So far, none of Mr. Moore's victims have been even the slightest bit brown, nor is he, nor is he their uncle.

ghostjmf wrote:Molestation isn't a feature of ghettoes & non-existent in lilly-white communities. Its either complete ignorance or willful twisting of evidence to claim this.

So far, none of Mr. Moore's victims have been even the slightest bit brown, nor is he, nor is he their uncle.

You just validated Spock's claim perfectly.

Nope. What thesis?

Just for the heck of it, what customer of underaged Dominican prostitutes, including both male & female prostitutes, is currently running for office in the US?

BackInTex wrote: Nor do they consider under-age prostitutes in the Dominican Republic worthy of their concern.

Rush Limbaugh certainly does.

Spock wrote: I can't help but think of the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of young teenage girls in the 90% Democrat voting areas like Detroit, Baltimore-Indian Reservations etc-that are molested by their "Ghetto/Reservation uncles."

The left expects nothing better for these poor girls than for the cycle to continue.

The only people I have heard trying to minimize child sexual abuse are some of the supporters of Roy Moore who compare him and his victims to Mary and Joseph.

And there's no question that many cases never get reported for fairly obvious reasons in any demographic area. But please provide some background for your apparent claims that liberals aren't interested in solving the problem in urban areas. Otherwise it's just another wild unsupported statistic and claim that you've pulled out of your rear end.

Spock wrote:Every time a mass shooting happens-we are supposed to have a conversation about guns and we are always supposed to have a conversation about race. It might be fun if we could broaden this conversation.

I can't help but think of the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of young teenage girls in the 90% Democrat voting areas like Detroit, Baltimore-Indian Reservations etc-that are molested by their "Ghetto/Reservation uncles."

The left expects nothing better for these poor girls than for the cycle to continue.

Don't forget the little boys...

Spock wrote:Every time a mass shooting happens-we are supposed to have a conversation about guns and we are always supposed to have a conversation about race. It might be fun if we could broaden this conversation.

I can't help but think of the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of young teenage girls in the 90% Democrat voting areas like Detroit, Baltimore-Indian Reservations etc-that are molested by their "Ghetto/Reservation uncles."

The left expects nothing better for these poor girls than for the cycle to continue.

They're not running for the United States Senate. Roy Moore is. The question is whether the voters of Alabama will decide that they'd rather be represented in the Senate by a child molester or a Democrat. It saddens me that a large fraction of the state (including some of its elected officials) even consider this a close call. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:Senator Isakson has publicly commented that it's better to have a child molester in the Senate than a Democrat. That, of course, is precisely what's wrong with the country, and in particular the Republican Party, right now. And sss must be so proud of his senator right now. --Bob

Where the hell did this come from? One of your trusted research sites?

It is the consensus of pretty much every credible poll that most democrats are slightly to be preferred to child molesters. I doubt Isakson said that.

Bob78164 wrote:

Spock wrote:Every time a mass shooting happens-we are supposed to have a conversation about guns and we are always supposed to have a conversation about race. It might be fun if we could broaden this conversation.

I can't help but think of the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of young teenage girls in the 90% Democrat voting areas like Detroit, Baltimore-Indian Reservations etc-that are molested by their "Ghetto/Reservation uncles."

The left expects nothing better for these poor girls than for the cycle to continue.

They're not running for the United States Senate. Roy Moore is. The question is whether the voters of Alabama will decide that they'd rather be represented in the Senate by a child molester or a Democrat. It saddens me that a large fraction of the state (including some of its elected officials) even consider this a close call. --Bob

bob, I think Moore should step down. If he is innocent, he should deal with it on his own time. If he is truly concerned about the people he wants to represent, he should find a way to get out of the race and get someone else to replace him. But from past experience with politicians of his ilk, he probably won't because in his mind it's about him, not the people. But again, you have no grounds to be morally outraged if you supported Mr. Clinton, which I suspect you did. Your moral outrage seems to be politically selective.

It is certainly concerning that more and more, these accusations of sexual misdeeds seem to come at strategic moments in political campaigns. Is that coincidence? It is very difficult to prove a negative, and especially in these he said/she said (use whatever combination) situations, the accuser always seems to have the advantage. There have been many cases where the accuser has been proven to be malicious (Duke University). I don't know what the answer to this is, but it seems to be a new political weapon. So that is why many good people are understandably skeptical of these charges. You show your bigotry by branding the people in Alabama who support Moore as 'deplorables'. That is why Hillary lost, bob.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Spock wrote:Every time a mass shooting happens-we are supposed to have a conversation about guns and we are always supposed to have a conversation about race. It might be fun if we could broaden this conversation.

I can't help but think of the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of young teenage girls in the 90% Democrat voting areas like Detroit, Baltimore-Indian Reservations etc-that are molested by their "Ghetto/Reservation uncles."

The left expects nothing better for these poor girls than for the cycle to continue.

They're not running for the United States Senate. Roy Moore is. The question is whether the voters of Alabama will decide that they'd rather be represented in the Senate by a child molester or a Democrat. It saddens me that a large fraction of the state (including some of its elected officials) even consider this a close call. --Bob

bob, I think Moore should step down. If he is innocent, he should deal with it on his own time. If he is truly concerned about the people he wants to represent, he should find a way to get out of the race and get someone else to replace him. But from past experience with politicians of his ilk, he probably won't because in his mind it's about him, not the people. But again, you have no grounds to be morally outraged if you supported Mr. Clinton, which I suspect you did. Your moral outrage seems to be politically selective.

It is certainly concerning that more and more, these accusations of sexual misdeeds seem to come at strategic moments in political campaigns. Is that coincidence? It is very difficult to prove a negative, and especially in these he said/she said (use whatever combination) situations, the accuser always seems to have the advantage. There have been many cases where the accuser has been proven to be malicious (Duke University). I don't know what the answer to this is, but it seems to be a new political weapon. So that is why many good people are understandably skeptical of these charges. You show your bigotry by branding the people in Alabama who support Moore as 'deplorables'. That is why Hillary lost, bob.

No, I'm branding anyone who can read the Washington Post story and then listen to Moore's televised non-denials, and still have doubt that these charges are true, as willfully blind. (And that, in my view, is the difference from President Clinton. The only relationship that we know occurred was a consensual (if inappropriate) relationship between adults according to all parties involved. There is plenty of room for doubt whether the other relationships occurred or were non-consensual at the time.) I'm branding Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) and Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) as people who are demonstrably more willing to have a child molester in the Senate than a Democrat.

There is something badly wrong in this country when elected officials can say that it's better to have a child molester in the Senate than a member of the opposite party. Even Mitch McConnell seems to know better than that. --Bob