Expert concludes Roy Moore wrote disputed entry in accuser's yearbook, lawyer says

a reply to: luthier

I don't think I mentioned liberals.
All those who are using unsubstantiated allegations as a means to influence people's votes through shaming are simply trying to control the outcome of an election. Nothing more, nothing less.

The very people you talk about on the Republican side have known about widespread sexual abuse within their own halls for years and said NOTHING. They do not care about this issue at all, so using those people as some sort of arbitration rings very hollow indeed.

a reply to: UKTruth

Lol. They care about blame getting on them.

If these allegations are true they lose a seat for sure and further elections.

Again this is politics 101 and trump constantly uses unsubstantiated manipulations.

Confirmation bias is real.

Keep up the entertainment, partisan hacks

There are so many gray areas here. There are real molesters and creepers out there, and we need to be very cautious about lumping all past behaviors into one big category.

It is a new age, there are new rules, and men (and women) have got to adjust quickly. The vicious political climate requires it, as well, because society has weaponized feminism and what was okay back then is NOT okay today.

Today, a 30-yr. old man hitting on a 14 or 15 year old girl is totally unacceptable....period. Even though many in that age group are sexually active already, and many of them look and act much older than their years, it is incumbent on a man to know who it is he is flirting with. (Maybe require a birth certificate before asking her out!)

But, decades ago, it was not so unusual for an older man (30) to marry teenagers. In my genealogy researches, I have examined census records and marriage records and was flabbergasted to see so many 40 yr. old men married to teens, some of those girls having had their first child at 15 or 16 years old!

Men must learn the 21st century rules and cease to be so loose with their flirtatious behavior.

a reply to: queenofswords

Possible true. However, pretty sure 30 year old men hitting on 14 year-olds was always to be able to manipulate a young mind and make easier the control over another.

Maybe not always but usually? A 30 year old woman may talk back and have opinions.

And yes decades ago it was still weird in most of the country for 30 year Olds to be with 14 year Olds.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: UKTruth

Lol. They care about blame getting on them.

If these allegations are true they lose a seat for sure and further elections.

Again this is politics 101 and trump constantly uses unsubstantiated manipulations.

Good lord, wtf has trump got to do with it??
I am not debating whether Trump manipulates - of course he does. In fact, he beat the politicians at their own game.
For someone who seems to hate Trump so much, you sure do copy him a lot.

a reply to: queenofswords

My father was born in 1920 in alabama.
When he was 33 years old he married a 15 year old girl.
She later divorced him but he remained proud about the fact that he was able to marry a girl so young till the day he died.

If you do the math it shows that it was legal for a 33 year old man to marry a 15 year old girl in 1953 alabama.

My father was not a good man in a lot of ways.

My dad did this in 1953.
Roy more (allegedly) did what he is accused of in 1979.
Was it common for guys in their 30s to date 15 year olds in 1979? What was the norm back then when it came to stuff like this?
Some one do some research and get back to us. I can't right now.

a reply to: UKTruth

How so...

I am referring to your constant partisan hacking.

Do you believe the government should pay for religious monuments and use religious morality when it is in opposition to the Constitution?

Gay marriage as far as government documents is constitutionally sound.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: UKTruth

How so...

I am referring to your constant partisan hacking.

Do you believe the government should pay for religious monuments and use religious morality when it is in opposition to the Constitution?

Gay marriage as far as government documents is constitutionally sound.

My argument is a simple one - reject accusations until proof is available.
Your position is to insult and shame people based on accusations against the person they may vote for in a clear attempt to shame them into voting your way. I think it's clear where the partisan hackery is.
As for Moore's views on religious morality, it's more important what the people of Arizona believe. Debate it with them. Personally, I think it should be fine to hang the 10 commandments in a State building and I don't think people of same sex should be allowed to marry.

a reply to: UKTruth

Well maybe your from the UK and don't understand the us Constitution. It really doesn't matter what the people of Alabama believe if it's contrary to the Constitution.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

I really don't know. Those records from that era (70's) are not readily available online for the public. I do know people from that time that got married at 15 or 16 to men in their 20's, and they are still happily married.

I would assume in the 50's, many girls were eager to marry young as most weren't seeking careers outside marriage and children. An older man with an established job was probably desirable.

originally posted by: luthier

To manipulate religious freedom to mean right to use your faith to descriminate is not what the forefathers were talking about.

The taxpayers money should not go to religious favoritism or religious ethics unless they comply with the constitutional laws.

originally posted by: luthier
Do you believe the government should pay for religious monuments and use religious morality when it is in opposition to the Constitution?

Gay marriage as far as government documents is constitutionally sound.

Your own words trap you.

Your complaint has nothing to do with the allegations; your complaint against Moore is obviously a purely political/religious difference. And that's fine. We are allowed to have those differences in the United States. Whoever can convince the pubic at large of their ideals wins.

But the problem is that you are not willing to abide by that. Instead of trying to debate political or religious differences, you prefer to launch attacks on a man's character. You hide your true agenda behind a facade of fake morality. When that facade is cracked by your own admissions, you simply pile on more makeup to make the facade stronger, and hurl greater and greater insults at others to divert public attention, rather than honestly admit your true problems.

We the people of Alabama see right through your illusion. We see the person who is scared to debate honestly. We see who is resorting to underhanded tactics to advance their agenda regardless of who it might hurt in the process. And just like we the people of the United States rejected it in 2016... we the people of Alabama will reject it again Tuesday.

You lost. Live with it. Or keep trying the same tactics and keep losing until there is nothing left to lose... your call. I don't really care.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck

originally posted by: luthier

To manipulate religious freedom to mean right to use your faith to descriminate is not what the forefathers were talking about.

The taxpayers money should not go to religious favoritism or religious ethics unless they comply with the constitutional laws.

originally posted by: luthier
Do you believe the government should pay for religious monuments and use religious morality when it is in opposition to the Constitution?

Gay marriage as far as government documents is constitutionally sound.

You hide your true agenda behind a facade of fake morality.

Alternatively, immoral people view others genuine morality as "fake".

That projection makes them feel better about their own moral failings.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: UKTruth

Well maybe your from the UK and don't understand the us Constitution. It really doesn't matter what the people of Alabama believe if it's contrary to the Constitution.

Perhaps I understand it better than you. You just said, I quote, "it doesn't matter what the people of Alabama believe".
Actually, it does, as in all states. People vote for their representatives to pass and change law. Even the constitution has been amended and process is in place to amend it in the future too. If that happens it will be because the people demand it.
Perhaps you should learn about your own system. It is not one that usurps the will of the people - quite the contrary.
It seems you believe and want a dictatorship.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Are you calling me immoral?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: UKTruth

Well maybe your from the UK and don't understand the us Constitution. It really doesn't matter what the people of Alabama believe if it's contrary to the Constitution.

Perhaps I understand it better than you. You just said, I quote, "it doesn't matter what the people of Alabama believe".
Actually, it does, as in all states. People vote for their representatives to pass and change law. Even the constitution has been amended and process is in place to amend it in the future too. If that happens it will be because the people demand it.
Perhaps you should learn about your own system. It is not one that usurps the will of the people - quite the contrary.
It seems you believe and want a dictatorship.

So a congressman can change the constitution? That the way it works? Lol

Keep trying bud.

I think your very confused about how the amendment process works.

And no people like you who want to erase the separation of church and state and bipass the amendments for religious laws are the ones who want dictators.

The state of Alabama can't rewrite the constitution?

You made an incredibly empty post not based on reality.

And mr Moore shares your views. He doesn't like the amendments after the tenth either. Though I guess he also has issue with religious freedom and what that actually means.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

originally posted by: luthier

To manipulate religious freedom to mean right to use your faith to descriminate is not what the forefathers were talking about.

The taxpayers money should not go to religious favoritism or religious ethics unless they comply with the constitutional laws.

originally posted by: luthier
Do you believe the government should pay for religious monuments and use religious morality when it is in opposition to the Constitution?

Gay marriage as far as government documents is constitutionally sound.

Your own words trap you.

Your complaint has nothing to do with the allegations; your complaint against Moore is obviously a purely political/religious difference. And that's fine. We are allowed to have those differences in the United States. Whoever can convince the pubic at large of their ideals wins.

But the problem is that you are not willing to abide by that. Instead of trying to debate political or religious differences, you prefer to launch attacks on a man's character. You hide your true agenda behind a facade of fake morality. When that facade is cracked by your own admissions, you simply pile on more makeup to make the facade stronger, and hurl greater and greater insults at others to divert public attention, rather than honestly admit your true problems.

We the people of Alabama see right through your illusion. We see the person who is scared to debate honestly. We see who is resorting to underhanded tactics to advance their agenda regardless of who it might hurt in the process. And just like we the people of the United States rejected it in 2016... we the people of Alabama will reject it again Tuesday.

You lost. Live with it. Or keep trying the same tactics and keep losing until there is nothing left to lose... your call. I don't really care.

TheRedneck

I haven't lost. Unless your some kind of ats judge. Which you are not.

His character is vile. It's perfectly fine to have the opinion. Sometime after trump was elected some conservatives with opinions like yours turned to snowflakism.

It's OK to criticize Clinton character but not Roy Moore who doesn't believe the amendments after the tenth have any worth. Or that 30 year Olds should date teenagers.

It's like saying Muslims are fine for subjugation of women or marrying 14 year olds....

Yes I have a problem with those things. Not ashamed.

I see bill Clinton in Roy Moore. Maybe worse.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

Are you calling me immoral?

TheRedneck

I made an observation. You apparently had cause to think about it personally.

Was it you that said this about another poster?

You hide your true agenda behind a facade of fake morality.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

originally posted by: luthier

To manipulate religious freedom to mean right to use your faith to descriminate is not what the forefathers were talking about.

The taxpayers money should not go to religious favoritism or religious ethics unless they comply with the constitutional laws.

originally posted by: luthier
Do you believe the government should pay for religious monuments and use religious morality when it is in opposition to the Constitution?

Gay marriage as far as government documents is constitutionally sound.

Your own words trap you.

Your complaint has nothing to do with the allegations; your complaint against Moore is obviously a purely political/religious difference. And that's fine. We are allowed to have those differences in the United States. Whoever can convince the pubic at large of their ideals wins.

But the problem is that you are not willing to abide by that. Instead of trying to debate political or religious differences, you prefer to launch attacks on a man's character. You hide your true agenda behind a facade of fake morality. When that facade is cracked by your own admissions, you simply pile on more makeup to make the facade stronger, and hurl greater and greater insults at others to divert public attention, rather than honestly admit your true problems.

We the people of Alabama see right through your illusion. We see the person who is scared to debate honestly. We see who is resorting to underhanded tactics to advance their agenda regardless of who it might hurt in the process. And just like we the people of the United States rejected it in 2016... we the people of Alabama will reject it again Tuesday.

You lost. Live with it. Or keep trying the same tactics and keep losing until there is nothing left to lose... your call. I don't really care.

TheRedneck

"We the people of Alabama"

You don't represent the entire state and its population, and you're not any sort of "official" spokesman for the state of Alabama and all of its people.

a reply to: luthier

I haven't lost. Unless your some kind of ats judge. Which you are not.

Are you serious? You think this is all about winning an ATS argument?

I have news for you: this is about much more than just who gets in jabs at ATS. This is about the future of our country, and actual collusion to throw an election. It's about the sanctity of honesty in incriminating people, and the very ability of those wrongly accused to defend themselves.

I sincerely hope you are not so clueless as to think this is just about ATS... because when I say you lost, I didn't mean a debate. I meant you lost the respect of the people of this country, your countrymen, the agenda you so rabidly support, and perhaps even the ability to protect yourself against falsehoods against you in some future date.

TheRedneck