apodino wrote:

The fact is, no one knows for sure if these charges are true or not. No evidence either way has been presented.

When you discount the first-person testimony (evidence) of people who were directly involved, as well as the testimony of those to whom they had reported the events, then you eliminate all chance of bringing a scumbag to account.

I imagine that statutes of limitations ensure that 38-year-old crimes cannot now be prosecuted. There is only the court of public opinion to weigh in on the matter.

Moore is the Republican frontrunner. He could shoot someone in the face in broad daylight and the Alabama GOP is going to deny it. They don't want a democrat to win by default.

So they will deny these charger. The hypocrisy is that these will be the same cowards that are calling out Weinstein in all their letters that seek contributions to the party.

Disgusting, and it shows what kind of politics are going to come out of Alabama.

I got it that they were into slavery and incest and those two things don't surprise me about Alabama conservatives. But pedophilia? That's a bit extreme even for Southern Republicans. But if Direct says it's cool I guess it dudnt botha him none. Shucks, Roy just tryin to be friendly with the girl, and he told Hannity today some of the girls certainly looked old enough.

Apparently one of the accusers was on the campaign staff for Hillary during her presidential run. This may not be relevant to this case at all, but this may not be a coincidence either.

apodino wrote:

Apparently one of the accusers was on the campaign staff for Hillary during her presidential run. This may not be relevant to this case at all, but this may not be a coincidence either.

Apparently Roy Moore is a racist, bigot, with no respect for the constitution or laws of this country is a much more relevant argument to this than that statement. His disregard for laws in favor of biblical support also seems to apply to his love life as he thinks he can get away with being with women under the age of consent, but of the age of Mary when Jesus was born.

Two wrongs don’t make a right, but the irony of Moore demanding innocence until proven guilty when he himself is an unapologetic Birther who still believes Obama was born abroad.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/22/polit ... index.html

apodino wrote:

Wow....again another thread dealing with something political has turned into nothing but name calling by both sides. Stuff like this keeps us divided as a country and stirs up anger and resentment among everybody, and we have no love for anyone and we wonder why we have the problems we do in this country.

Roy Moore was a garbage neanderthal *before* he predictably turned out to be ye olde Christian pedophile, and again predictably Republicans and Christians are racing to support him despite solidly credible accusations. There was no reasoning with Roy before the pedophilia problem--there's no middle ground when one side thinks certain people are illegal just by virtue of existing and in repeated violation of the Constitution, even when they suddenly want to rewrite the Civil War as a failure to compromise over whether black people are human. One side has completely and totally lost their mind, and Roy Moore is their patron saint.

BobPatterson wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

The WP, after weeks of grooming the supposed victims, couldn't come up with even one allegation of sexual assault.

I'm sure most of the Alabama Trump supporters will see Roy as a changed man now..........

I love the way you groom the issues. Well done.

IIRC, Journalism (the professional type) requires research before publishing a story like Moore's. Editors are pretty vigorous at newspapers like WaPo and they have to approve a store. WaPo's standards were pretty well displayed in the movie "All The President's Men".

It is therefore understandable to assume that WaPo would have researched thus story over a reasonable period of time. It may also reasonable to assume that assurances were made to the women that the newspaper would not run the story if Moore lost the primary so the women's name wouldn't be splashed around the country.

While Moore's supporters these stories will die out before the election I would not be surprised if more women come out and talk about their trips to Moore's cabin in the woods when they were a teenage girl. Pedophile? Does just one 14 Year Old Girl qualify you as a pedophile? And if he had a good time rubbing around with a 14 year old do you believe he would stop with one.

My takes?

1. WaPo was the driving investigative force behind Watergate. Don't underestimate them.

2. Moore played with little girls when he should not have. So far we only know of one who was 14, or younger. It would be folly to assume that there are no more. Remember when Watergate Break-in was only a 3rd rate break-in?

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Wow, then I can only imagine the skeletons in the closet of Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, and Elijah Cummings !!!

Just like Clinton is still guilty after 20 years and 100 million US $ Spend on investigations I bet.

wingman wrote:

I got it that they were into slavery and incest and those two things don't surprise me about Alabama conservatives. But pedophilia?

Why not? Job, the child rapist, is the only good man in Sodom and Gomorrha, maybe they just want to be good people. After all being that kind of person got Job saved as well, including his dual teenage daughter playthings ....

Best regards
Thomas

wingman wrote:

But pedophilia? That's a bit extreme even for Southern Republicans.

Be precise. going after physically nubile 14 year olds is not "pedophilia".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

It's just accusations, won't make a difference.

If Chappa-whatever didnt stop Mass. voters re-electing Ted Kennedy over & over....

727LOVER wrote:

It's just accusations, won't make a difference.

It will, actually.

Of course what the voters of Alabama are actually hoping for is for him to win, then removed due to his actions are noted in the reporting, and then replaced by the governor by a more effective Republican candidate.

Tugg

727LOVER wrote:

It's just accusations, won't make a difference.

If Chappa-whatever didnt stop Mass. voters re-electing Ted Kennedy over & over....

You are right. It only makes a difference if the accused is "liberal."

WIederling wrote:

Be precise. going after physically nubile 14 year olds is not "pedophilia".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

I'm impressed. Moore is one crafty GOP man of God. I guess he checks for puberty on the outside of the underwear before proceeding. Maybe that's what DIRECTFLT sees in him, a wily operative canny enough to thread the needle between kiddie sex and plain 'ol Christian sexual abuse of a minor. Well played Mr. Moore, St. Peter ain't got nothing on you.

WIederling wrote:

wingman wrote:

But pedophilia? That's a bit extreme even for Southern Republicans.

Be precise. going after physically nubile 14 year olds is not "pedophilia".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

Good afternoon to everyone except for this person. WTF. How many children have you assaulted?

jubguy3 wrote:

WIederling wrote:

wingman wrote:

But pedophilia? That's a bit extreme even for Southern Republicans.

Be precise. going after physically nubile 14 year olds is not "pedophilia".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

Good afternoon to everyone except for this person. WTF. How many children have you assaulted?

Odd that you raise the question of assault while verbally engaged in it yourself.

Obviously, you failed to read (or if you did, to understand) that there is a recognized definition for pedophilia and that, based upon it, Mr. Moore should not be charged with pedophilia.

Instead, he appears to have engaged in inappropriate behavior with regard to a post-pubescent minor.

Distinctions matter.

He is still, IMHO, a scumbag, but not a pedophiliac one.

People are now reporting they knew Moore was "dating" high school girls but didn't say anything

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... Q.facebook

Use the Bible to defend his actions

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... ary-joseph

And blame the victim

https://www.salon.com/2017/11/10/roy-mo ... reporters/

BobPatterson wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Be precise. going after physically nubile 14 year olds is not "pedophilia".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

Good afternoon to everyone except for this person. WTF. How many children have you assaulted?

Odd that you raise the question of assault while verbally engaged in it yourself.

Obviously, you failed to read (or if you did, to understand) that there is a recognized definition for pedophilia and that, based upon it, Mr. Moore should not be charged with pedophilia.

Instead, he appears to have engaged in inappropriate behavior with regard to a post-pubescent minor.

Distinctions matter.

He is still, IMHO, a scumbag, but not a pedophiliac one.

Age of consent in Alabama is 16. The girl he molested was 14. He broke the law.

As a white man, you don't have to deal with being molested or a power trip like that. Women, especially isolated and young girls, do not understand their options at the time. Back then, it was the word of a powerful man against them. People would side with the powerful man every time. Men keep asking "why didn't they come forward at the time?" Because they would be called nasty names and be discredited because of their home life. "Why didn't they come forward later?" Because they would be called nasty names and be discredited because of their past.

Why is it so hard to believe the word of a 14 year old girl that Moore molested her? That other girls over the age of consent did what he wanted out of fear? Why is that so hard to believe?

BobPatterson wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Be precise. going after physically nubile 14 year olds is not "pedophilia".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

Good afternoon to everyone except for this person. WTF. How many children have you assaulted?

Odd that you raise the question of assault while verbally engaged in it yourself.

Obviously, you failed to read (or if you did, to understand) that there is a recognized definition for pedophilia and that, based upon it, Mr. Moore should not be charged with pedophilia.

Instead, he appears to have engaged in inappropriate behavior with regard to a post-pubescent minor.

Distinctions matter.

He is still, IMHO, a scumbag, but not a pedophiliac one.

Thank you for accusing me of "not reading", you oxygen thief. According to google dictionary, nubile means:

"1.
(of a girl or young woman) sexually attractive.
"he employed a procession of nubile young secretaries"
2.
(of a girl or young woman) sexually mature; suitable for marriage.
synonyms: sexually mature;"

Something about the OP's perception is very wrong here to describe 14 year old girls as "nubile". They are in no way either physically and psychologically developed. A 14 year old cannot consent to sex or sexual relationships with a man in his 30's.

I guess that sexually assaulting 14 year old girls = the same thing as wishing good afternoon to everyone except for him. The class of privileged snowflakes, much like evangelicals (rapists) and conservatives (rapists), cower upon hearing anything less traditional than would be found in a dictionary. Thank you for needlessly accusing me of assaulting him. I guess I just assaultingly delivered the truth to you too. Both of you have a worrying sophistication with the semantics of pedophiles. Sex with a minor = pedophilia = statutory rape.

jubguy3 wrote:

Sex with a minor = pedophilia = statutory rape.

Chaining together false equivalents does not make a statement true.

Pedophilia depends on age. Sexual contact with a minor may very well not (post-pubescent, 14 or older) constitute pedophilia.

Rape, whether statutory or not, usually requires penetration. Non-penetration sexual contact may very well not be rape.

Definitions matter. Educate yourself.

None of Mr. Moore's accusers were under 14, and none claim that there was penetrative sex.

He's still a scumbag, but I know of no law for prosecuting that condition.

It gave me pause to read a Woman's name in today's paper who was quoted saying that she would vote for this man, no matter what, even if he is guilty of what he is accused of. She gave her name to the news, and said she loved him. Even if she is related which I doubt, I find that abhorrent. A news reporter said also that something is wrong in our country when a woman supports the worst kind of exploiter there is. Exploiting Youth while preaching the word of God. A religious wack, no doubt as he is. I am glad she lives in Alabama and not my neighborhood.

BobPatterson wrote:

there is a recognized definition for pedophilia and that, based upon it, Mr. Moore should not be charged with pedophilia.
Instead, he appears to have engaged in inappropriate behavior with regard to a post-pubescent minor.

Distinctions matter.
He is still, IMHO, a scumbag, but not a pedophiliac one.

You're slicing it too close for my taste. And this is a subjective matter, especially in borderline cases. Was the girl 14 1/2 or was she just 14? The stated cutoff for pedophilia seems to be at 13 years. But this can't possibly mean that on a Tuesday the girl is a child and it is a crime to molest her but, on Thursday of that same week she is fair game. In any event, the cutoff in the backwoods states is16.

Technically according to the DSM (not the law) his actions are an indication of Hebephilia.

But the question is, what is a 32 year old college graduate doing fooling around with a fourteen year old? Bob, I think you need to give that some more thought before you jump in to minimize his actions. A 32 year old who would bring a 14 year old to a private place for sex is probably doing that because he can't think of any pickup lines for a ten year old.

As for your colloquial diagnosis, I see him as a scumbag and a creep.

salttee wrote:

But the question is, what is a 32 year old college graduate doing fooling around with a fourteen year old? Bob, I think you need to give that some more thought before you jump in to minimize his actions.

He wasn't "just" a 32 year old college graduate. He was an Assistant District Attorney for crying out loud! No one can convince me that he was unaware of the fact that he was engaging in illegal behavior.

It would be wonderful if there were no statute of limitations and that a prosecutor could be found who would be brave enough to bring him to trial.

I do not mean to minimize or excuse his actions. I just think we ought to keep nonsense out of the discussions. Let's hang the guy properly.

I'd suggest he probably tried playing with girls because he hadn't discovered how to relate to women at or near his own age. I wonder how he managed to convince someone to marry him.

seb146 wrote:

As a white man, you don't have to deal with being molested or a power trip like that...

While I get that you normally don't know what you're talking about, it should be obvious even to you that you have no idea what other people have been through. You can go to hell.

BobPatterson wrote:

He wasn't "just" a 32 year old college graduate. He was an Assistant District Attorney for crying out loud! No one can convince me that he was unaware of the fact that he was engaging in illegal behavior.

It would be wonderful if there were no statute of limitations and that a prosecutor could be found who would be brave enough to bring him to trial.

I do not mean to minimize or excuse his actions. I just think we ought to keep nonsense out of the discussions. Let's hang the guy properly.

I didn't read that you were minimizing anything. And while I see the distinctions, I agree that there isn't an excuse for his behavior, 38 years ago or otherwise.

What keeps coming back to me is something very basic... If he's not fucking her, then what in the hell is he doing out in the woods, alone, with a 14 year old girl who's not his daughter? There's no good answer to that one.

What I also really hope is that this highlights the lunacy of voting along party lines 'no matter what'. As democrats, we frequently have the same issue and will abide all manner of scumbaggery just to keep an R out of office. No doubt, the same is happening here. The mental acrobatics to defend this guy are breath taking, and truth be told, even if he's totally innocent, does anyone really feel ok being represented by someone incompetent enough to avoid being placed in that position? Oh well, I guess it's really just that important to keep a D out of office in those parts...

BobPatterson wrote:

I'd suggest he probably tried playing with girls because he hadn't discovered how to relate to women at or near his own age. I wonder how he managed to convince someone to marry him.

Like any dirtburg does. By lying his ass off about everything he is.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

seb146 wrote:

As a white man, you don't have to deal with being molested or a power trip like that...

While I get that you normally don't know what you're talking about, it should be obvious even to you that you have no idea what other people have been through. You can go to hell.

That's rich, coming from you. You think that because I have a certain set of opinions, you think I grew up and now live a certain way. You have no idea what I have been through, yet you assume things about me.

So, tell me what part is not true about you, instead of just calling me names and leaving.

seb146 wrote:

Age of consent in Alabama is 16. The girl he molested was 14. He broke the law.

Correct. I never denied that.

seb146 wrote:

As a white man, you don't have to deal with being molested .........

Incorrect. I have had to fend off advances by homosexuals. No big deal as it turned out, but I have been subjected to unwanted sexual advances..

seb146 wrote:

Why is it so hard to believe the word of a 14 year old girl that Moore molested her? That other girls over the age of consent did what he wanted out of fear? Why is that so hard to believe?

I accept as true the reports from all four of the women mentioned in the Washington Post story. I think there were probably others who decided not to go public at this time.

What I don't understand is why you brought this up (with respect to me).

[list=][/list]

BobPatterson wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Age of consent in Alabama is 16. The girl he molested was 14. He broke the law.

Correct. I never denied that.

Cool.

BobPatterson wrote:

seb146 wrote:

As a white man, you don't have to deal with being molested .........

Incorrect. I have had to fend off advances by homosexuals. No big deal as it turned out, but I have been subjected to unwanted sexual advances..

Did they drive you to a cabin and make you strip down and touch you over your under garments? Or did they say "Hey, Bob, you look good in those slacks!"? See the difference?

BobPatterson wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Why is it so hard to believe the word of a 14 year old girl that Moore molested her? That other girls over the age of consent did what he wanted out of fear? Why is that so hard to believe?

I accept as true the reports from all four of the women mentioned in the Washington Post story. I think there were probably others who decided not to go public at this time.

What I don't understand is why you brought this up (with respect to me).

[/quote]

I just copied the whole thing. I get that, when a victim of sexual assault repeats the same story multiple times, it is true. I believe these women and what happened to them when they were young. Why I brought this up was an editing error on my part.

SNL chose their lead off skit to be about Roy Moore and a visit at the WH with VP Pence.

SNL doesn't give a sh*t about young teens being molested.... This was purely a Political slam at Moore, because Moore is not a liberal Politician.

IF SNL was just concerned about teen molestations, then the low hanging fruit would be Kevin Spacey, and the boat load of teens he's been accused by of bad acts.

But ahhhh, SNL did not go there. No, no, no, no, no.

SNL did do a "Ha-Ha" soft piece on the "We're Back" DNC that was obtuse and hardly direct.

SNL/NBC is still an arm of the DNC, and their bias for who gets slammed politically, and who gets the soft balls is clear.

Why do you watch fake TV?

salttee wrote:

You're slicing it too close for my taste. And this is a subjective matter, especially in borderline cases. Was the girl 14 1/2 or was she just 14? The stated cutoff for pedophilia seems to be at 13 years.

Pedophilia is attraction to pre pubescent children. That is biological/physical distinction and not an age distinction.

This seems to be a regular feature of Americans doing discussions.
Put things in the wrong drawer and then lament their presence in that drawer.

This is all so reminiscent of sophist religious argument chains we find in times that led to the reformation.
completely unusable for fact finding. The logic tools of the classic refound and later the Age of Reason
with its refinements on scientific process : completely lost there.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

SNL chose their lead off skit to be about Roy Moore and a visit at the WH with VP Pence.

SNL doesn't give a sh*t about young teens being molested.... This was purely a Political slam at Moore, because Moore is not a liberal Politician.

IF SNL was just concerned about teen molestations, then the low hanging fruit would be Kevin Spacey, and the boat load of teens he's been accused by of bad acts.

But ahhhh, SNL did not go there. No, no, no, no, no.

SNL did do a "Ha-Ha" soft piece on the "We're Back" DNC that was obtuse and hardly direct.

SNL/NBC is still an arm of the DNC, and their bias for who gets slammed politically, and who gets the soft balls is clear.

Kevin Spacey has been excluded from a movie that is supposed to get out in one month with an oscar worthy role.

It seems his career is pretty much over.

Meanwhile Moore is still on his way to becoming a US Senator.

Are you that critical of Fox "news" when they totally bury bad Trump news under insignificant crap ?

seahawk wrote:

Why do you watch fake TV?

When I read this the first time, all I could think of was the episode of "Family Guy" where Peter was teaching Meg to drive and they took out the town satellite dish. Near the end of the episode, Peter was walking around town with a cardboard cut-out of a TV strapped to his shoulders because he is so addicted to TV.

I think the better question you should ask is:

Why do you believe Fox? Or why do you believe that a comedy sketch show is real?

Fake media lies exposed:

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2017 ... uct-story/

DIRECTFLT wrote:

SNL chose their lead off skit to be about Roy Moore and a visit at the WH with VP Pence.

SNL doesn't give a sh*t about young teens being molested.... This was purely a Political slam at Moore, because Moore is not a liberal Politician.

IF SNL was just concerned about teen molestations, then the low hanging fruit would be Kevin Spacey, and the boat load of teens he's been accused by of bad acts.

But ahhhh, SNL did not go there. No, no, no, no, no.

SNL did do a "Ha-Ha" soft piece on the "We're Back" DNC that was obtuse and hardly direct.

SNL/NBC is still an arm of the DNC, and their bias for who gets slammed politically, and who gets the soft balls is clear.

Is SNL a news organization?

If you want to attack NBC/MSNBC has a whole, fine:...but PUHLEEEEEEZE...acting like SNL is worse than FOX News (a news organization, by the way) is beyond insane....and pretty pathetic.




























P A T H E T I C !!!!!!!!!

seahawk wrote:

Fake media lies exposed:

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2017 ... uct-story/

....AND LOOK AT YOUR SOURCE !!!

seahawk wrote:

Fake media lies exposed:

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2017 ... uct-story/

The KKK's favorite website that was the cheerleader for Roy Moore's election campaign? Surely you're not that stupid. Well if you're reading Breitbart maybe you are.

727LOVER wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

SNL chose their lead off skit to be about Roy Moore and a visit at the WH with VP Pence.

SNL doesn't give a sh*t about young teens being molested.... This was purely a Political slam at Moore, because Moore is not a liberal Politician.

IF SNL was just concerned about teen molestations, then the low hanging fruit would be Kevin Spacey, and the boat load of teens he's been accused by of bad acts.

But ahhhh, SNL did not go there. No, no, no, no, no.

SNL did do a "Ha-Ha" soft piece on the "We're Back" DNC that was obtuse and hardly direct.

SNL/NBC is still an arm of the DNC, and their bias for who gets slammed politically, and who gets the soft balls is clear.

Is SNL a news organization?

If you want to attack NBC/MSNBC has a whole, fine:...but PUHLEEEEEEZE...acting like SNL is worse than FOX News (a news organization, by the way) is beyond insane....and pretty pathetic.

I don't watch Fox News.... But I'll gladly leave that job to you!!

As for SNL's Political Bias.... It's


P A T H E T I C !!!!!!!!!

DIRECTFLT wrote:

SNL chose their lead off skit to be about Roy Moore and a visit at the WH with VP Pence.

SNL doesn't give a sh*t about young teens being molested.... This was purely a Political slam at Moore, because Moore is not a liberal Politician.

IF SNL was just concerned about teen molestations, then the low hanging fruit would be Kevin Spacey, and the boat load of teens he's been accused by of bad acts.

But ahhhh, SNL did not go there. No, no, no, no, no.

SNL did do a "Ha-Ha" soft piece on the "We're Back" DNC that was obtuse and hardly direct.

SNL/NBC is still an arm of the DNC, and their bias for who gets slammed politically, and who gets the soft balls is clear.

It's truly remarkable how dumb and bereft of morals you are. "SNL doesn't give a sh*t about young teens being molested" while you drop to your knees for sexual predators Trump and Moore. I don't know how you are able to throw stones from your glass house whilst simultaneously slurping on multiple sexual predators' members. It's impressive really.

MaverickM11 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Fake media lies exposed:

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2017 ... uct-story/

The KKK's favorite website that was the cheerleader for Roy Moore's election campaign? Surely you're not that stupid. Well if you're reading Breitbart maybe you are.

I got dinged for using the word moron to describe someone.

But, I guess "stupid" is a kinder, gentler word to say the same thing.

But anything goes if words are used against a conservative site and it's readers, right??

seahawk wrote:

Fake media lies exposed:

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2017 ... uct-story/

I presume that you mean that Breitbart is "fake media". If so, I agree.

From the Breitbart article:

"Wells, Corfman’s mother, was asked by Breitbart News: “Back then did she have her own phone in her room or something?”

“No,” she replied matter-of-factly. “But the phone in the house could get through to her easily.” (my emphasis added)

So while there was no extension phone in the bedroom, the long cord on the house phone could easily permit it to be taken into the bedroom.

Where is the "news" in this?

About two months ago I decided to place links in my favorite places for a number of right-wing "news" organizations and, when things got slow in this forum, to visit them daily so that I could form an opinion about right-wing sources vs. what I consider to be normative news outlets.

This daily task that I've imposed on myself gets to be more and more onerous each passing week.

At first I actually found a couple of pieces at Breitbart that were factual and comparable to items published by organizations that give more than lip service to fact checking.

Now, I long to find such a case/story, and the one you cited is a perfect example of why that is.

Breitbart so slants/distorts the "news" that it is creating stories out of whole cloth.

"EXCLUSIVE -- Mother of Roy Moore Accuser Contradicts Key Detail............"

It turns out that there was no contradiction, just an interesting additional bit of information about how the telephone happened to be in the daughter's bedroom.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Fake media lies exposed:

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2017 ... uct-story/

The KKK's favorite website that was the cheerleader for Roy Moore's election campaign? Surely you're not that stupid. Well if you're reading Breitbart maybe you are.

I got dinged for using the word moron to describe someone.

But, I guess "stupid" is a kinder, gentler word to say the same thing.

But anything goes if words are used against a conservative site and it's readers, right??

Woof you're just as whiny as your daddy Trump. You poor baby. Just telling it like it is; isn't that what you're all about? Breitbart readers *are* stupid by definition, and now they're super into pedophilia cuz duh bibul. I wouldn't even smear conservatives by calling it a conservative website--it's merely Bannon's platform to support his causes unquestioningly, which include Moore and Trump. However if I want to know what mentally challenged white supremacist sexual deviants think, it is my go-to source.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Fake media lies exposed:

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2017 ... uct-story/

The KKK's favorite website that was the cheerleader for Roy Moore's election campaign? Surely you're not that stupid. Well if you're reading Breitbart maybe you are.

I got dinged for using the word moron to describe someone.

But, I guess "stupid" is a kinder, gentler word to say the same thing.

But anything goes if words are used against a conservative site and it's readers, right??

He didn't say YOU'RE STUPID....he said SURELY YOU'RE NOT THAT STUPID

That's a huge difference

I can't believe you have brought this site down to THIS

727LOVER wrote:

I can't believe you have brought this site down to THIS

It's what Trump supporters do. They find the intellectual and moral rock bottom of something, and start drilling downward.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Evangelical Christians, even those you claim to be hypocritical frauds, have every right to elect someone, just like themselves, to represent them in Govt.

Isn't that the way representative Govt. works ??

Except how are Evangelical Christians underrepresented in Congress? And more importantly, why do their act is if their concerns are the only ones that matter?

seb146 wrote:

727LOVER wrote:

It's just accusations, won't make a difference.

If Chappa-whatever didnt stop Mass. voters re-electing Ted Kennedy over & over....

You are right. It only makes a difference if the accused is "liberal."

Bill Maher put it right: We don´t defend our sex abusers, we convict them. Haven´t seen much defending of Weinstein for example..... while Bush is just the 93 year old in a wheelchair, Moore is fine, because Jesus, Trump just made locker talk and so on...

BobPatterson wrote:

[Mr. Moore should not be charged with pedophilia.

If you want to be hyper specific, you can not be charged with pedophilia, that is a condition, not a crime. It only becomes a crime if you act it out.

best regards
Thomas

DIRECTFLT wrote:

727LOVER wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

SNL chose their lead off skit to be about Roy Moore and a visit at the WH with VP Pence.

SNL doesn't give a sh*t about young teens being molested.... This was purely a Political slam at Moore, because Moore is not a liberal Politician.

IF SNL was just concerned about teen molestations, then the low hanging fruit would be Kevin Spacey, and the boat load of teens he's been accused by of bad acts.

But ahhhh, SNL did not go there. No, no, no, no, no.

SNL did do a "Ha-Ha" soft piece on the "We're Back" DNC that was obtuse and hardly direct.

SNL/NBC is still an arm of the DNC, and their bias for who gets slammed politically, and who gets the soft balls is clear.

Is SNL a news organization?

If you want to attack NBC/MSNBC has a whole, fine:...but PUHLEEEEEEZE...acting like SNL is worse than FOX News (a news organization, by the way) is beyond insane....and pretty pathetic.

I don't watch Fox News.... But I'll gladly leave that job to you!!

As for SNL's Political Bias.... It's


P A T H E T I C !!!!!!!!!

But SNL was right on key and hilarious when they were "calling out" and making fun of Obama and Clinton....

All of you defending Moore, where were you defending Wienstien and Spacey? Why are you not slandering the accusers of them?

seb146 wrote:

But SNL was right on key and hilarious when they were "calling out" and making fun of Obama and Clinton....

Well, liste to one or two Marle Haggard songs and you know who the "Snowflakes" really are.... .nothing but complaining in those songs.

best regards
Thomas

seahawk wrote:

Fake media lies exposed:

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2017 ... uct-story/

Fighting fire with fire for a nice overall blaze

seb146 wrote:

All of you defending Moore, where were you defending Wienstien and Spacey? Why are you not slandering the accusers of them?

Because this presidency is the result of people who made Honey Boo Boo and Duck Dynasty successful. Because conservatives (and sheep-skinned "preachers") have done an excellent job of indoctrinating a large chunk their base with circular reasoning. The media is liberal, and therefore anything the liberal media says must be incorrect and is persecution of things conservative, and almost always overlapping, hardcore Evangelical Christians--it's amazing how you rarely find one without the other in these instances--never mind that the real problem is politically-biased news-sourced entertainment. They couldn't care less when someone who doesn't have an "R" next to their name is criticized. But criticize the R--that's tantamount to holy war.

Also, those of you going back and forth about pedophilia...it doesn't really matter as it's still alleged sexual (mis)conduct with a minor.

Charges or none, true or not, Roy Moore is a twice-removed elected official (if this were Hillary Clinton running, they'd be howling... but because he thumps the Bible) who has in no uncertain terms stated that his view of God trumps due process and respect for the law, and ironically calls for the impeachment of judges with whom he disagrees. THAT should be the real story about Roy Moore as he is a threat to the Constitution that Republicans are so supposedly militant about protecting.