[mr.fundamental]

Bill Cosby is innocent!

[Bob Seger]

Sexually assault a thirteen year old. See what they call you. Good luck on the old cell block. What a tribalist!

Ah, the word of the week, which you have already worn out....Cant wait til next week when some grade school kid comes up with a new one that you can copy and wear it out too.

What a real bore.:zzz:

[mr.fundamental]

oops sorry wrong thread... but I am glad I to see Bill Cosby cleared to this board anyway! Also, the 50 pastors that support Judge Moore, that's right, look at the virgin Mary and Joseph... that was according to Mr. Zieglar (sp) he holds a constitutional office in Alabama. Just for the record, if a 30 year old man comes after my 14 year old daughter... I would press charges to the full letter of the law.

[Bob Seger]

Bill Cosby is innocent!

So far, regardless of what you, I, or anyone else thinks, there has not been a court of law, judged by his peers on the jury that have come up with a conclusion that he is not.

[Bob Seger]

oops sorry wrong thread... but I am glad I to see Bill Cosby cleared to this board anyway! Also, the 50 pastors that support Judge Moore, that's right, look at the virgin Mary and Joseph... that was according to Mr. Zieglar (sp) he holds a constitutional office in Alabama. Just for the record, if a 30 year old man comes after my 14 year old daughter... I would press charges to the full letter of the law.

Hmmm, apparently her mother didn't have an issue though, did she?

[The Urban Sombrero]

^^ Consider this. The Democrats are despite the double-double down, on the ropes. So, what are their options and what has been their modus-operandi?

For evidentiary purposes, and though one could compile a book sized volume of examples, there is no need to go back any further than the Romney/Obama campaign to demonstrate the point. In that election season even though there were many examples of collusion, DNC debate tampering, and vote manipulation, most of what the media chose to elaborate on were the efforts of character assassination against Romney.

In the past election the Democrats used billions of "the people's" tax dollars to send legions of investigators and lawyers out to dig up stuff on DJT. But because as it turned out, he was only mildly possessed of any sort of character flaws, the best they could do was the a locker-room boy talk tape. So came the false charges of Russia collusion which spawned 21 long months of so-called investigations, which in reality are mere extensions of Obama's original efforts to discredit another political foe.

In summation, the Dems lie, cheat, and allege character flaws against all the foes they face. The two nuclear go-to's for the DNC slime machine are sexual slander, or bigotry of the racial or gender variety. Now, if they (the Dems) are brave enough to attack a sitting President with this stuff, surely we are not kidding ourselves in the case of Judge Roy Moore?

How many women was it again who came out at the last second to accuse DJT of sexual aggression? 10 at last count that I know of. How many came out at just he right moment to accuse Herman Cain? Dems know people have a tendency to believe such allegations on their face, so they will continue to go back to the well until the tactic stops working IMHO. But in view of the recent past, is anybody other than me skeptical at all about all these charges of sexual misconduct against Judge Roy Moore?

I'll tell you who doesn't know a thing about it. Anybody reading this post for starters, but past that Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Bob Corker, Mike Lee, or any of the other 13 senators who've come forward to slam him publicly. It could all be the stuff of brazen political attack, and I think people should wait, be it vigilantly if they choose, for real evidence. I mean, they've certainly been patient to that end where the past administrative big wigs are involved. If I didn't know better I'd think the soap opera and the real world have traded places.

Again and again, BOTH the RNC and DNC do the single most predictable thing in politics: pull out nearly every stop to WIN. It would not occur to me to defend Anthony Weiner. I hope the man finds some redemption and peace, but he should not be in Congress. I said, in all caps, “IF” on Roy Moore, though it seems fairly likely that the young-then prosecutor (early 30’s) sought out teenage girls. Again “IF” any of those “seeking outs” included sexual assault of any kind, Roy Moore does not belong in Congress. Now, let us all remember the released audio of then candidate Trump overtly stating that wealth (and one assumes power) make it possible for a man to just walk right up and grab a woman’s genitalia, and they don’t mind. That sounds like an unlikely universal. It also sounds like a man whose philosophical underpinnings regarding sexuality make some sort of sexual assault not particularly unlikely. Under the “why now” objection, one need look no further than current news: men and women voicing up about being victimized. The roots of sexual misconduct and perversion are long, historical, and common, made worse by Puritanical values and shrouding.
What we have on this thread is pure verification of tribalism, plain and simple.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Hmmm, apparently her mother didn't have an issue though, did she?

A man can be an evangelical and pay strippers to undress in front of him. A statement of belief, sitting on a board of deacons, spoken advocacy of Christian principle, far right political views, NONE of these things make it ok for a thirty something prosecutor to target teenage girls. Can we at least agree on that? Leaving Roy Moore’s “did it” or “didn’t do it” out of it?

[mr.fundamental]

Hmmm, apparently her mother didn't have an issue though, did she?

That says more about society than anything I could ever put on a message board. I would hope others would help me to protect the innocence of a child, regardless of what a mother chooses to do...

[The Urban Sombrero]

Ah, the word of the week, which you have already worn out....Cant wait til next week when some grade school kid comes up with a new one that you can copy and wear it out too.

What a real bore.:zzz:

You’ve been asleep logically the entire duration of the Sombrero’s time on BGR. But, back to the issue: a thirty something prosecutor had an eye for teenage girls. Prima facie, that is troublesome.

[Bob Seger]

That says more about society than anything I could ever put on a message board. I would hope others would help me to protect the innocence of a child, regardless of what a mother chooses to do...

Maybe so. Maybe not so.....But at this present time, apparently your thoughts are not relevant in a situation of a parent condoning it.

[Bob Seger]

You’ve been asleep logically the entire duration of the Sombrero’s time on BGR. But, back to the issue: a thirty something prosecutor had an eye for teenage girls. Prima facie, that is troublesome.

Well generally all it takes is for you to type the week's worn out new word and I automatically get drowsy....Or any other word for that matter.

[Bob Seger]

A man can be an evangelical and pay strippers to undress in front of him. A statement of belief, sitting on a board of deacons, spoken advocacy of Christian principle, far right political views, NONE of these things make it ok for a thirty something prosecutor to target teenage girls. Can we at least agree on that? Leaving Roy Moore’s “did it” or “didn’t do it” out of it?

Apparently, legally not relevant if a parent consents....Just useless blabber on your part , AGAIN.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Well generally all it takes is for you to type the week's worn out new word and I automatically get drowsy....Or any other word for that matter.

When a word applies, use it. I would assume drowsiness at any opposition characterizes the tribalist, as does ignoring the obvious when one’s ideological Temple is challenged. Now, to return to the topic at hand: would you agree that, no matter the party affiliation or ideological homeland, a thirty something prosecutor with an eye for teenage girls is, at the least, problematic?

[mr.fundamental]

Bob, I am starting to believe you are a pro-choice human being! Is this so? A mean legally it is right to be pro-choice, which seems to be the stance you are conveying but I am interested in the line you choose to take.

[Motley]

Seeing an evolution of denial to justification pretty quickly in here.

[Motley]

Looks like he is all touchy feely to me...The "nasty woman" Ashley Judd went haywire over something much less than this at the airport....

Don't wanna talk about stuff like that though, I guess?

I guess if you want to start a thread over it then have at it. I was just (very easily) pointing out that you posted a photoshopped picture to try and justify your appreciation of a child predator.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Apparently, legally not relevant if a parent consents....Just useless blabber on your part , AGAIN.

Gadsen Mall, Bob, Gadsen Mall. “Useless blabber” to a tribalist is anything that shakes the ol’ ideologial Temple. Now, let’s see, malls are now and always have been full of unchaperoned teenage girls. If there is any “useless blabber,” well, it’s clear on the boommerrang.

[Bob Seger]

I guess if you want to start a thread over it then have at it. I was just (very easily) pointing out that you posted a photoshopped picture to try and justify your appreciation of a child predator.

Just pointing out your hypocrisy, plus, the part you didn't want to point out about Mr. Foot Stuck in His Mouth.

Come on now lefty, your special little breed is all about people's rights, correct? Don't renege on that now when it's blowing back in your face...You know, stuff like innocent until proven guilty.

[Bob Seger]

Gadsen Mall, Bob, Gadsen Mall. “Useless blabber” to a tribalist is anything that shakes the ol’ ideologial Temple. Now, let’s see, malls are now and always have been full of unchaperoned teenage girls. If there is any “useless blabber,” well, it’s clear on the boommerrang.

Be sure you don't mention parental consent..


I love having conversations with the far left. They are so dumb in thinking that they are so smart.

You make it so easy.

[Motley]

Just pointing out your hypocrisy, plus, the part you didn't want to point out about Mr. Foot Stuck in His Mouth.

Come on now lefty, your special little breed is all about people's rights, correct? Don't renege on that now when it's blowing back in your face...You know, stuff like innocent until proven guilty.

How did you point out any hypocrisy? I never posted an opinion of what is taking place here. I simply posted that you shared a fake photo to justify your support of a suspected child predator. That's it. Sorry if I offended you by posting the correct photo to derail your plans to compare Joe Biden to a guy that engaged in sexual relationships with underage girls.

[Bob Seger]

When a word applies, use it. I would assume drowsiness at any opposition characterizes the tribalist, as does ignoring the obvious when one’s ideological Temple is challenged. Now, to return to the topic at hand: would you agree that, no matter the party affiliation or ideological homeland, a thirty something prosecutor with an eye for teenage girls is, at the least, problematic?

:zzz:

Oh, sorry, you again?....I'm still not quite awake from your last thoughts.

Yeah, use it, and use it you will, even when it makes absolutely no sense at all to use it...I'll bet you find some way to use the official "word of the week" even when you go thru the drive-thru at McDonalds to order a hamburger..

[The Urban Sombrero]

:zzz:

Oh, sorry, you again?

Yeah, use it, and use it you will, even when it makes absolutely no sense at all to use it...I'll bet you find some way to use the official "word of the week" even when you go thru the drive-thru at McDonalds to order a hamburger..

They discontinued the “Tribalist burger,” as it was always burned.

[Bob Seger]

How did you point out any hypocrisy? I never posted an opinion of what is taking place here. I simply posted that you shared a fake photo to justify your support of a suspected child predator. That's it. Sorry if I offended you by posting the correct photo to derail your plans to compare Joe Biden to a guy that engaged in sexual relationships with underage girls.

And I defended a child molester? Where? When? Who would that guy be?..Has any due process taken place to give you support of that comment towards anyone over anything that I said?

Why he has rights, says lefty....Why it's downright un-American to deny such process.."It's Not Who We Are!!"

Thanks for condoning , Mr. Touchy Feely though...Most of all thanks for proving my point.

nicker:

[Bob Seger]

They discontinued the “Tribalist burger,” as it was always burned.

I have no doubt that you tried to order one "this week" though...:Clap:

[The Urban Sombrero]

Be sure you don't mention parental consent..


I love having conversations with the far left. They are so dumb in thinking that they are so smart.

You make it so easy.

You’ve made it easy, Bob. See “unchaperoned.”

[TheRealThing]

Again and again, BOTH the RNC and DNC do the single most predictable thing in politics: pull out nearly every stop to WIN. It would not occur to me to defend Anthony Weiner. I hope the man finds some redemption and peace, but he should not be in Congress. I said, in all caps, “IF” on Roy Moore, though it seems fairly likely that the young-then prosecutor (early 30’s) sought out teenage girls. Again “IF” any of those “seeking outs” included sexual assault of any kind, Roy Moore does not belong in Congress. Now, let us all remember the released audio of then candidate Trump overtly stating that wealth (and one assumes power) make it possible for a man to just walk right up and grab a woman’s genitalia, and they don’t mind. That sounds like an unlikely universal. It also sounds like a man whose philosophical underpinnings regarding sexuality make some sort of sexual assault not particularly unlikely. Under the “why now” objection, one need look no further than current news: men and women voicing up about being victimized. The roots of sexual misconduct and perversion are long, historical, and common, made worse by Puritanical values and shrouding.
What we have on this thread is pure verification of tribalism, plain and simple.

Not true, no Republican has hired a foreign intelligence operative to manufacture a dossier on a Democrat candidate for the office of the Presidency.

Verbosity cannot shroud your "pure and simple" intent, which is to defend all things liberal. Whenever there is Republican blood in the water, your fangs are bared every time. You cannot reasonably refute a word of my post and because your overarching goal is to support all things liberal, you attack anything and anybody of that view.

Nobody knows whether Roy Moore is guilty as charged or not. And yet your every thought on the matter has been for the purpose of public prosecution. The observations of my post are undeniable and intended only to afford the man the right of innocence until proof of guilt has been provided. But thanks for taking such offense. And for the record, 240 years of history as applicable to the United States of America has been a little more noble than tribalism.

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆️
By the way, ONLY a tribalist would label it as “far left” to hold that a thirty something prosecutor with an eye for teenage girls is problematic. The issue is not one of prosecution (where “consent” might apply), but one of whether or not Roy Moore belongs in Congress.

[Bob Seger]

You’ve made it easy, Bob. See “unchaperoned.”

Wow!! A new word? Double WOW!!

Still cant use one that is applicable though...You just cant figure that part of it out.

[Motley]

And I defended a child molester? Where? When? Who would that guy be?..Has any due process taken place to give you support of that comment towards anyone over anything that I said?

Why he has rights, says lefty....Why it's downright un-American to deny such process.."It's Not Who We Are!!"

Thanks for condoning , Mr. Touchy Feely though...Most of all thanks for proving my point.

nicker:

Sorry. You've defended a suspected child predator this entire thread. That's so much better.

[Bob Seger]

⬆️
By the way, ONLY a tribalist would label it as “far left” to hold that a thirty something prosecutor with an eye for teenage girls is problematic. The issue is not one of prosecution (where “consent” might apply), but one of whether or not Roy Moore belongs in Congress.

Not condoning or non condoning anything.. Just pointing out that you omit the parts that don't fit your narrative.

In other words, you are just a hack!!