It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: primus2012
originally posted by: DBCowboy
This issue initially bothered me because of the politics involved and the timing of the allegations.
Then I thought back to the 60's and 70's and remembered a time when attitudes were far different then.
But one thing that stuck with me is this; a grown man was in a vehicle with a 14 year old.
The ONLY time any grown man should be in a vehicle with a 14 year old is when he's driving the babysitter home.
No where has he said that he wasn't in the vehicle with a 14 year old.
(unless I'm mistaken)
So nail his sorry ass to the wall.
He said he never met the then 14 yr old and her allegations are false. That pretty much includes an assumed statement that he wasnt in any vehicle with her.
He did say he dated the 17, 18, 19 yr olds, with their parents' permission. Those women admitted that he was the most eligible bachelor around, and that he played his guitar for them, and may have hugged and kissed, bought wine at dinner, but nothing more.
Two different types of stories, detailing two completely different types of men.
Good! You agree! It is government getting in the way by making arbitrary rules and forcing the will of some on others!!!
At best, this semantics.
I have stated for years now that there should be no reference to "marriage" in the law... all references should be changed to a less religious term. "Marriage" is a religious ceremony and should remain in the realm of the churches (or participants of a religion). Secular advantages of such should be open to any two consenting adults.
I am going to assume you are not and have never been married, because you apparently don't know the difference between telling a girl "I love you" and telling a preacher in front of a congregation "I do."
However, because various religions do embrace marriage as a religious ceremony/rite, there should be some differentiation under the law.
30 something years and still going strong. Crazy, huh?
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: DBCowboy
The Statute of Limitations ran out long long long ago. No matter what, Moore is in absolutely zero legal jeopardy.
Agreed, and since the State is Constitutionally prohibited from any interference in religion, it is actually unconstitutional IMO to even have marriage defined legally. On the other hand, I can see a social benefit to some limitations on who is and is not allowed to claim marriage (or its secular equivalent) for legal and tax purposes.
Congratulations. We just passed the 30-year mark ourselves.
So surely you see the difference between privately expressing love for each other and publicly declaring yourselves joined in matrimony?
My contention is that he did spend time with young women, but is that enough to prosecute in the court of public opinion?
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: TheRedneck
You made a good argument.
I will concede the point.
My freedom of association, including my choice of who to marry or not, naturally belongs to me. No one else can make that choice for me. I cannot force anyone to choose to marry me, or otherwise associate with me; but only I can make that choice for myself.
Conversely, if someone else has the power and authority to tell me who I cannot marry, then they also have the power and authority to tell me who I must marry.
Strangely enough, we appear to be closer on this issue than either of us probably thought we were before this discussion. And that's the point relevant to this thread.
In both cases, the issues upon which Moore based his convictions were ignored in favor of a more charged political accusation. In the allegations currently aimed at him, his accusers are focusing on explosive comments and unsubstantiated allegations from questionable sources, not on the situation that actually happened.
That is not what I want to see continue in Washington DC; I would much rather the debate be open and honest.
I see that, and for too many that attitude/approach is the norm. I am disturbed at how many people seem to think guilt or innocence should be determine by one's opinion or belief -- not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There seems to be no regard or respect for the value of fair and transparent protocols and procedures for a fair and reasonable investigation to determine facts -- whether by authorities or the press. Sometimes even that won't tell us the whole truth. But too often feelings and beliefs are given precedence over due process and equal application of the law. Instead it's principles be damned! We'll make it up as we go along. Ugh.
originally posted by: Dfairlite
My take on the whole thing: Predators don't stop. if he's a predator, people will come forward with evidence and it will have been in the last 10 years.