[The Urban Sombrero]

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, you bare your fangs 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.

Again, “prosecution” has to do with legal liability. This is not the discussion. 240 years of United States history proves what the rest of history does: those who profess Christ are not immune to sins of sexuality. “Put up the commandments. I’m going to run down to the mall.”

[Bob Seger]

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

They don't call you the Motley Fool fer nuthin!!

:biggrin:

[Bob Seger]

Again, “prosecution” has to do with legal liability. This is not the discussion. 240 years of United States history proves what the rest of history does: those who profess Christ are not immune to sins of sexuality. “Put up the commandments. I’m going to run down to the mall.”

You mean run down the hall to the stall?

[Bob Seger]

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

What about ole Mr. Touchy Feely?

Any thoughts concerning him? You seem to be avoiding him at all costs right now.

[Motley]

What about ole Mr. Touchy Feely?

Any thoughts concerning him? You seem to be avoiding him at all costs right now.

I legitimately have no idea what you're even talking about to be honest. The title of the thread is Judge Roy Moore.

[Bob Seger]

I legitimately have no idea what you're even talking about to be honest. The title of the thread is Judge Roy Moore.

Dodge. Duck. Divert.

And yes you do.

[TheRealThing]

Define irony: A bunch of gossip mongers on a political forum taking the position of legitimacy, citing legal liability and ad-hoc pronouncements of same, along with historically revisionist slurs and Scriptural misinterpretations to justify their far left ideological argument.

[TheRealThing]

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.

⬆️
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.

Seriously? This is kind of slime is always your best. Every time you get pinned you drop a slanderous name on your debate opponent and slither out of every jamb into which you are inevitably trapped by repeating another unconfirmed charge. You even wrongly characterized your charge in the clinical sense, (assumedly to impress somebody other than yourself) pronouncing Judge Moore a pedophile. It takes more than causticisms to frame or participate in meaningful debate.

[Hoot Gibson]

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

Same old pattern on display here. Another post, another dishonest smear. As I understand it, Moore has acknowledged that he dated teenagers when he was in his twenties and early thirties. He has denied the unsupported allegations of a woman who claimed he abused her when she was 14 years old.

Not content with the unsupported allegation that Moore has denied, you toss out the number 13 to enhance the smear, implying that it has something to do with the allegations against Moore.

You incorrectly used the word pedophile and have continued to refuse to acknowledge that fact.

It takes two honest people to engage in an honest debate. Any debate in which you take part, starts with a deficit of one in that area.

[mr.fundamental]

I am shocked I say shocked to learn that I have so many pro choice folks on this thread... the mother chose to do anything about it, seems to be what I am hearing, hey I get it, pro-choice, it is the mothers choice that she would not defend our 14 year old child. It was perfectly legal, I get it. I am just shocked! I can not stress enough that I am shocked!

[mr.fundamental]

I must also ask a legit question... is it true Judge Moore was banned from a mall? Is that true? If it was why?

[TheRealThing]

Hey, our old buddy tvtimeout is back. Hi tvtimeout what's wrong, no replies to the two threads you started so you came over here to get some action? nicker:

[Bob Seger]

Hey, our old buddy tvtimeout is back. Hi tvtimeout what's wrong, no replies to the two threads you started so you came over here to get some action? nicker:

Ah, come on. I remember him. That's the character we all used to make fun of and laugh at.
:hilarious:

And that's him?

Honest to goodness that is really him?

:biglmao:

So that explains this stupid mother/choice stuff...I get it now..

:Clap:

[TheRealThing]

Ah, come on. I remember him. That's the character we all used to make fun of and laugh at.
:hilarious:

And that's him?

Honest to goodness that is really him?

:biglmao:

So that explains this stupid mother/choice stuff...I get it now..

:Clap:

Yeah he got all turned around in a discussion and signed in under both accounts in a series of posts. They're one in the same.

[mr.fundamental]

It is good to be back to visit in Eastern Kentucky! I am so glad you remember me. I hope you and your family are doing well. It is always interesting to come home and see all the progress we have made. But back to the discussion at hand. Roy Moore ... his actions are being treated for good by some on here because it was legal or the mother consented. That is interesting coming from those that say they would defend the an embryo because it is innocent but my simple question is would not a child need to be defended as well? Also what is it true he was kicked out of a mall?

[Bob Seger]

Leave it to you to try in your own demented way to equalize two different subjects and responses...

Can anyone say, "Out in left field"....

[mr.fundamental]

Please explain Mr. Seger, the "left" says that abortion is a choice for a woman and furthermore, it is legal in the U.S.

The way that I have understood this thread is that Judge Moore, did nothing wrong, it was legal, and with the dealings of the 14 year old girl, the mother chose for that it was ok for her child. Have I misunderstood the argument on this point? If so, please clarify for me. Thank you.

[TheRealThing]

It is good to be back to visit in Eastern Kentucky! I am so glad you remember me. I hope you and your family are doing well. It is always interesting to come home and see all the progress we have made. But back to the discussion at hand. Roy Moore ... his actions are being treated for good by some on here because it was legal or the mother consented. That is interesting coming from those that say they would defend the an embryo because it is innocent but my simple question is would not a child need to be defended as well? Also what is it true he was kicked out of a mall?

Gee thanks, I see your own progress appears to be somewhat lacking though. To wit, your propensity for dredging up an errant premise, the bolded^^, and on that false foundation you then proceed to build observations which do not apply. Don't wish my family well out of one side of your mouth and accuse me of the duplicity of supporting both sexual predation and the sanctity of life out the other.

NOBODY has come on here to say "his actions are good," because they don't know what the heck those actions may have actually been. Nor has anybody defended the Judge. What they've done is extend him the assumption of innocence until proof of guilt is presented. You on the other hand and several others have taken a stance that prejudges Moore as being guilty until proven innocent. Principle and liberty are thusly stood on their heads in our time, as you so aptly demonstrate. We were once a nation of laws, that appears to be a thing of the past.

Do you seriously not realize or understand that YOU DON'T KNOW whether the charges levied against Judge Moore are legitimate or if they are lies? If the US Senate rolls over on Moore (and McConnell certainly already has) without any proof other than this sort of playground slur, any candidate such as Roy Moore or any currently serving member is a target. At that point all that would have to be done assumedly, is for Dems to find somewhere between 1 to 10 women who're willing to come out and make the allege. They've got them crawling out of the woodwork now accusing George H W Bush of inappropriate sexual advances. The same H. W. BTW, who's been out of office for very nearly 4 decades.

Now, how interesting do you find all of that?

[The Urban Sombrero]

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!!

“Omit” is in the eye of the beholder, just as, I guess, appropriateness and/or perversion in the eye of a thirty something prosecutor scoping the mall for high school (heck, middle school) girls. Geez.

[TheRealThing]

“Omit” is in the eye of the beholder, just as, I guess, appropriateness and/or perversion in the eye of a thirty something prosecutor scoping the mall for high school (heck, middle school) girls. Geez.

The great copier strikes again, 'I guess.'

[The Urban Sombrero]

Gee thanks, I see your own progress appears to be somewhat lacking though. To wit, your propensity for dredging up an errant premise, the bolded^^, and on that false foundation you then proceed to build observations which do not apply. Don't wish my family well out of one side of your mouth and accuse me of the duplicity of supporting both sexual predation and the sanctity of life out the other.

NOBODY has come on here to say "his actions are good," because they don't know what the heck those actions may have actually been. Nor has anybody defended the Judge. What they've done is extend him the assumption of innocence until proof of guilt is presented. You on the other hand and several others have taken a stance that prejudges Moore as being guilty until proven innocent. Principle and liberty are thusly stood on their heads in our time, as you so aptly demonstrate. We were once a nation of laws, that appears to be a thing of the past.

Do you seriously not realize or understand that YOU DON'T KNOW whether the charges levied against Judge Moore are legitimate or if they are lies? If the US Senate rolls over on Moore (and McConnell certainly already has) without any proof other than this sort of playground slur, any candidate such as Roy Moore or any currently serving member is a target. At that point all that would have to be done assumedly, is for Dems to find somewhere between 1 to 10 women who're willing to come out and make the allege. They've got them crawling out of the woodwork now accusing George H W Bush of inappropriate sexual advances. The same H. W. BTW, who's been out of office for very nearly 4 decades.

Now, how interesting do you find all of that?

Jefferson had his concubines. Kennedy had his divas. What? George H.W. Bush is immune? Perhaps he is in a long line of rich, powerful men who are genitalia grabbers? Both ‘pubs and dems of the male persuasion have testosterone and a culture that glorifies sexual conquest and inflames desire. Why would anybody be surprised at the whole rotten mess? No claim here of immunity for men of any denomination or nationality or political persuasion. Sexual scandal and perversion = an equal opportunity stumbling block.

[mr.fundamental]

Gee thanks, I see your own progress appears to be somewhat lacking though. To wit, your propensity for dredging up an errant premise, the bolded^^, and on that false foundation you then proceed to build observations which do not apply. Don't wish my family well out of one side of your mouth and accuse me of the duplicity of supporting both sexual predation and the sanctity of life out the other.

NOBODY has come on here to say "his actions are good," because they don't know what the heck those actions may have actually been. Nor has anybody defended the Judge. What they've done is extend him the assumption of innocence until proof of guilt is presented. You on the other hand and several others have taken a stance that prejudges Moore as being guilty until proven innocent. Principle and liberty are thusly stood on their heads in our time, as you so aptly demonstrate. We were once a nation of laws, that appears to be a thing of the past.

Do you seriously not realize or understand that YOU DON'T KNOW whether the charges levied against Judge Moore are legitimate or if they are lies? If the US Senate rolls over on Moore (and McConnell certainly already has) without any proof other than this sort of playground slur, any candidate such as Roy Moore or any currently serving member is a target. At that point all that would have to be done assumedly, is for Dems to find somewhere between 1 to 10 women who're willing to come out and make the allege. They've got them crawling out of the woodwork now accusing George H W Bush of inappropriate sexual advances. The same H. W. BTW, who's been out of office for very nearly 4 decades.

Now, how interesting do you find all of that?

First off never accused anyone of anything, asking for clarification though is legit.

What is your position on this situation?

My position is that it is sad as I have said earlier that it some folks think it is ok because the mother consented to letting her 14 daughter be with a 30 year old man, that does not make it moral. It might be legal, but not moral.
Second, to further the point, I want to know if it is true that Roy Moore was not allowed back into a mall in Alabama? If he was not why?

That is my position.

So as others have asked, again I say what is your position on this matter?

[mr.fundamental]

Jefferson had his concubines. Kennedy had his divas. What? George H.W. Bush is immune? Perhaps he is in a long line of rich, powerful men who are genitalia grabbers? Both ‘pubs and dems of the male persuasion have testosterone and a culture that glorifies sexual conquest and inflames desire. Why would anybody be surprised at the whole rotten mess? No claim here of immunity for men of any denomination or nationality or political persuasion. Sexual scandal and perversion = an equal opportunity stumbling block.

Yes, it is a great stumbling block. David, Solomon, Abraham, to go back even further.

I am glad that some see it, however, I guess for others they are just not ready to see it yet.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Same old pattern on display here. Another post, another dishonest smear. As I understand it, Moore has acknowledged that he dated teenagers when he was in his twenties and early thirties. He has denied the unsupported allegations of a woman who claimed he abused her when she was 14 years old.

Not content with the unsupported allegation that Moore has denied, you toss out the number 13 to enhance the smear, implying that it has something to do with the allegations against Moore.

You incorrectly used the word pedophile and have continued to refuse to acknowledge that fact.

It takes two honest people to engage in an honest debate. Any debate in which you take part, starts with a deficit of one in that area.

“Judge Roy Moore has denied...”

Side splitting humor. This just in: el Chapo argues he dealt in pharmaceuticals and denies any connection to drugs.

At the point of the “sexually assault a thirteen year old girl” post, we were discussing your thin, parsed understanding of pedophilia. Either you did not understand, or...boommerrang on the virtue of honest debate lecture.

[TheRealThing]

“Judge Roy Moore has denied...”

Side splitting humor. This just in: el Chapo argues he dealt in pharmaceuticals and denies any connection to drugs.

At the point of the “sexually assault a thirteen year old girl” post, we were discussing your thin, parsed understanding of pedophilia. Either you did not understand, or...boommerrang on the virtue of honest debate lecture.

Forgive me for interrupting. But since you seem to enjoy analogies about things which are thrown, let us then consider the act of rock skipping. The rock is thrown is such fashion so as to avoid immersion for as many successive skips as possible, with the ultimate goal being for it to land on the dry ground on other side of the water. For the stone, though wet from the experience, skipping off the surface might still be considered to have been somewhat superficial. Any pronouncements which assume guilt of the part of the judge are at this point based in pure superficiality. Such skipping off the surface is hardly worthy of the American system of justice.

Soap opera level drama dripped from your posts about Trump Tower not having been wiretapped, as it did when you said Mueller was tightening a noose around the neck of DJT. History proved your speculative hopefulness wrong on those counts, as it may well do on this occasion. We don't know yet.

[TheRealThing]

Jefferson had his concubines. Kennedy had his divas. What? George H.W. Bush is immune? Perhaps he is in a long line of rich, powerful men who are genitalia grabbers? Both ‘pubs and dems of the male persuasion have testosterone and a culture that glorifies sexual conquest and inflames desire. Why would anybody be surprised at the whole rotten mess? No claim here of immunity for men of any denomination or nationality or political persuasion. Sexual scandal and perversion = an equal opportunity stumbling block.

Yes, it is a great stumbling block. David, Solomon, Abraham, to go back even further.

I am glad that some see it, however, I guess for others they are just not ready to see it yet.

Thanks but a clumsy remedial on the sinful nature of man is still not admissible in court. Your baseless equivocations do however demonstrate my point. The issue here has absolutely nothing to do, especially in consideration of the existence of real evidence, with whether or not Republicans are as bad as Democrats.

Rather it has to do with a little thing called due process. A little fixture of American justice of which I am sure you are unfamiliar.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Forgive me for interrupting. But since you seem to enjoy analogies about things which are thrown, let us then consider the act of rock skipping. The rock is thrown is such fashion so as to avoid immersion for as many successive skips as possible, with the ultimate goal being for it to land on the dry ground on other side of the water. For the stone, though wet from the experience, skipping off the surface might still be considered to have been somewhat superficial. Any pronouncements which assume guilt of the part of the judge are at this point based in pure superficiality. Such skipping off the surface is hardly worthy of the American system of justice.

Soap opera level drama dripped from your posts about Trump Tower not having been wiretapped, as it did when you said Mueller was tightening a noose around the neck of DJT. History proved your speculative hopefulness wrong on those counts, as it may well do on this occasion. We don't know yet.

We’ll see. Note the initial post: “IF” (all caps). Note: the accusation was that Barack Obama ordered the wiretapping. Perhaps the “skipping stone” is actually a boommerrang?

[The Urban Sombrero]

Thanks but a clumsy remedial on the sinful nature of man is still not admissible in court. Your baseless equivocations do however demonstrate my point. The issue here has absolutely nothing to do, especially in consideration of the existence of real evidence, with whether or not Republicans are as bad as Democrats.

Rather it has to do with a little thing called due process. A little fixture of American justice of which I am sure you are unfamiliar.

See the first post. Stepping out of a Senate race is not equivalent to being put on actual trial in a court of law. Thus, the “due process” jargon is a red herring.

[TheRealThing]

See the first post. Stepping out of a Senate race is not equivalent to being put on actual trial in a court of law. Thus, the “due process” jargon is a red herring.

Getting girls to bring charges of sexual misconduct against any man that walks, including a sitting President, has been shown within the last year's time to be anything but hard to do.

When it was pointed out that you don't know a single thing past that which any of us on here knows about Judge Moore, you retreated back into familiar territory to say that everybody in government is supposedly equally beset of perversion and a bent to lie. Which of course is baloney and inconsistent at best, as you're nonetheless calling for Moore to step aside based on little more than a rumor of same. Using your rationale they'd all need to step down. But if candidates and politicians do not hold their accusers to a legal standard, those accusers could reasonably say anything and where would one draw the line if not the courtroom?

It's incredible that such a self-styled genius would repeatedly have to have this stuff explained. Or perhaps you'd prefer to hold the entire elective process hostage to such ignorance?

[Hoot Gibson]

“Judge Roy Moore has denied...”

Side splitting humor. This just in: el Chapo argues he dealt in pharmaceuticals and denies any connection to drugs.

At the point of the “sexually assault a thirteen year old girl” post, we were discussing your thin, parsed understanding of pedophilia. Either you did not understand, or...boommerrang on the virtue of honest debate lecture.

I am not the one who misused the word and refused to admit my mistake. Any adult male who maintains a sexual relationship with a 14 year old or attempts to enter into such a relationship is guilty of disgusting behavior, and depending on state law, perhaps statutory rape, but those actions do not constitute pedophelia. Look it up, genius.