‘Take the Bible…’: And thus began the worst defense of Roy Moore

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: jimmyx

I am making neon signs that say "I'm a racist!" if you're interested. Might be better advertisement than posting.

TheRedneck

no, i don't think you're a racist. I'm a 64 year old white guy, and even here in California, I've been called a racist to my face. I ignore it, due to the fact that I'm not. I don't let it bother me, so why do you?

No cure for pedos.

No cure for Humanity in general.

I don't know -maybe everyone needs to die. Then, no more problems.

Hell, everyone is out for blood, domination, and self-satisfaction -so, why not.

Rounds of death for all !!! (Sarcasm with a strait face.)

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: jimmyx

I am making neon signs that say "I'm a racist!" if you're interested. Might be better advertisement than posting.

TheRedneck

no, i don't think you're a racist. I'm a 64 year old white guy, and even here in California, I've been called a racist to my face. I ignore it, due to the fact that I'm not. I don't let it bother me, so why do you?

IDK about TheRedneck but it would bother me. If someone called me racist to my face they would be more than likely say it behind my back. That is something that would bother me greatly. It may tarnish ones reputation, image,what you are. Maybe it's a Canadian thing. IDK. Others would be pedo, thief, liar. Things that attack the core of what you are.

originally posted by: hiddenlight
No cure for Humanity in general.

I don't know -maybe everyone needs to die. Then, no more problems.

Hell, everyone is out for blood, domination, and self-satisfaction -so, why not.

Rounds of death for all !!! (Sarcasm with a strait face.)

a reply to: intrepid

That's the key. You never let anyone get in "your face." The moment someone even acts like they are going to do something like that, you take the initiative and "shut them down." Most of that deals with not "setting yourself up for failure" by even being around anyone like that. Also, never really "listen to them," you watch them and make it clear that, "I'm not the one, 'and' I will take you out."

In this world not only can you not afford to play with people you don't let anyone play with you.

Nice Carlin vid -but, as dead as the rest.

a reply to: Aazadan

Jesus doesn't make me want to be a Christian. From the stories told of him, I quite like him. He was clever, had a quick wit, and was a good person. The baseline that people should measure themselves by.

Jesus is the baseline. That's the biggest myth about Christianity. The preachers that everyone seems to despise are in fact sometimes despicable, but they are NOT the example one should strive to be like.

"Christian" literally means "of (or like) Christ." "Christ" literally translates as the anointing of God, which was on Jesus of Nazareth. So to truly be a Christian means one wishes to possess that same anointing that made Jesus of Nazareth who He was.

It has nothing to do with a preacher.

TheRedneck

a reply to: intrepid

Probably just a Crimson Tide hater. Sometimes it hurts to be so successful.

*sigh* True, true... OK, point made, we'll try to let Mississippi actually score tomorrow.

TheRedneck

a reply to: jimmyx

no, i don't think you're a racist.

Er, I was offering to sell YOU a sign. I don't need one.

I've been called a racist to my face.

I'm not surprised.

TheRedneck

It's one thing to come to the defense of someone but it seems to be something completely different to say, 'I don't think it happened, but if it did it's ok because...'

Someone mentioned Louis C.K. who has come forward and admitted guilt.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I kind of agree with you Red. Even though I am not Christian(Christos/Anointed/Messiah/King), I believe the theological baseline is the "Word of God." Christ(fictional character he is) pointed the finger(messenger to God). Although he is at the "Right hand of the Father," the Father(God is still on the throne). In that case, "Godliness/Word" I would argue is the baseline. Christ was a Nazarene, but he was not from Nazareth.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I'm not going to defend pedophilia.

But, as I have pointed out in other threads, I don't believe the accuser. For the record, I don't have a lot of faith in the accuser(s) of Louis C. K. either, and I don't particularly like him.

TheRedneck.

If you’re not defending pedophilia, why are you so quick to discount the accusers and accept the denial from the accused?

If Roy Moore is so innocent, why isn’t he suing the Washington Post for slander and/or defamation of character?

And how about this one........If those accusing Louis C.K. are lying, why did Louis C.K. come out and say that their accusations are true?

Truth is, when it comes to their politics, the tribal mentality of the conservative movement has left it with no choice other than to maintain a state of denial that now has them in full blown defense of both sexual predators and pedophiles.

As sad as it is, this is the new norm for the Republican Party and judging by the way Roy Moore keeps getting re-elected, despite his misdeeds, it been the norm in Alabama for quite some time.

But hey, if Trump can “grab em by the pussy,” why not Roy Moore? Right?

The fact that they would stoop to using the Bible in an attempt to justify pedophilia is both, pathetic and somewhat predictable.

So is Roy Moore’s brother comparing him to Jesus being persecuted. I’m not even religious and I can still see what a pathetic joke that is.

a reply to: Flatfish

If you’re not defending pedophilia, why are you so quick to discount the accusers and accept the denial from the accused?

Because everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

If Roy Moore is so innocent, why isn’t he suing the Washington Post for slander and/or defamation of character?

• He is, but the paperwork hasn't been filed yet
  
• He may, after discussion with his lawyers
  
• He doesn't want to bring more attention to a false accusation at this time.
  
• He doesn't think it's worth pursuing.
  
• He doesn't have the time to appear in court just yet.
  
• He has been advised the best route is to counter-sue if/when she sues him.
  
• He doesn't want to.

Not every case is taken to court. Not every slight receives legal attention. Sometimes the best course of action is to let it slide. After all, the Statute of Limitations for sexual assault in Alabama is 2 1/2 years... he cannot be convicted criminally. The case would have to go to civil court.

And how about this one........If those accusing Louis C.K. are lying, why did Louis C.K. come out and say that their accusations are true?

I just heard about his admission. Louis C. K. is apparently guilty and should pay the penalty. No sympathy for him.

Truth is, when it comes to their politics, the tribal mentality of the conservative movement has left it with no choice other than to maintain a state of denial that now has them in full blown defense of both sexual predators and pedophiles.

No, the truth is some people are reasonable enough to realize that accusations are not convictions.

As sad as it is, this is the new norm for the Republican Party and judging by the way Roy Moore keeps getting re-elected, despite his misdeeds, it been the norm in Alabama for quite some time.

Alabama hasn't been a Republican-dominated state for "quite some time." It used to be a part of the "Solid South" Democratic voting block. Are you suggesting that the Democrats started this?

But hey, if Trump can “grab em by the pussy,” why not Roy Moore? Right?

The exact phrase was "If you're famous, they'll let you grab them by the ****"

Let you. As in, consensual. As in, not illegal, immoral, or anything else (except possibly a little on the whorish side).

Let's get real here. You don't like Moore. Fine. Don't elect him. I like the man, because he is honest (as in saying exactly what he intends instead of sugar-coating bad intentions), he is tenacious, and he at least acknowledges that Christians are human too. I plan on voting for him. So does everyone I know. We'll elect him; you elect your own Senator.

But trying to destroy a man's name because you don't want his state to elect him to office? That, my friend, is - to turn a phrase - deplorable.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

No, what’s “deplorable” is defending and voting for sexual predators and/or pedophiles.

a reply to: Flatfish

Who is voting for a sexual predator?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck

But hey, if Trump can “grab em by the pussy,” why not Roy Moore? Right?

The exact phrase was "If you're famous, they'll let you grab them by the ****"

Let you. As in, consensual. As in, not illegal, immoral, or anything else (except possibly a little on the whorish side).

There's some very, very serious problems with this idea of what you would consider consensual. I hope you get a chance to read Louis C.K.'s letter admitting what happened. You can read it here. Here's an excerpt though:

At the time, I said to myself that what I did was okay because I never showed a woman my dick without asking first, which is also true. But what I learned later in life, too late, is that when you have power over another person, asking them to look at your dick isn’t a question. It’s a predicament for them. The power I had over these women is that they admired me. And I wielded that power irresponsibly.

...

I also took advantage of the fact that I was widely admired in my and their community, which disabled them from sharing their story and brought hardship to them when they tried because people who look up to me didn’t want to hear it. I didn’t think that I was doing any of that because my position allowed me not to think about it.

...

I have spent my long and lucky career talking and saying anything I want. I will now step back and take a long time to listen.

Oftentimes, it's less about sex and more about power. In both Louis' and Trump's case; fame begets admiration begets power. In Moore's case, age and career begets power.

a reply to: links234

Thank you for the excerpt. I had heard the report that he had admitted wrongdoing, but I had not delved deeper.

But I have serious concerns about this 'power of admiration' angle. I understand that actions taken by someone with power over another can be problematic; but the power of admiration? I would hazard to say that every woman who marries a man admires him in some way. So is the consummation of the wedding an assault? If so, if simply being attractive to a woman is 'power over her' and subjects the man to charges of sexual abuse, every single male alive is guilty!

Let's just cut to the chase and pass a law that makes it illegal to be born male.

As I said, I have no sympathy for someone who sexually abuses a woman. The boss who expects his secretary to perform 'after-hours favors' for him is guilty of sexual assault; it is reasonable for the woman to believe her job might be in danger if she refuses. A producer who utilizes the casting couch is guilty; it is reasonable for the woman to believe the producer will damage her career if she refuses. Obviously, physically threatening or overpowering a woman is sexual assault. But what this is talking about is in essence no more than threatening to not have a relationship if she doesn't want a relationship!

No, no, no... I can't go along with that. If Louis C. K. thinks he assaulted a woman, then that is his business and his cross to bear. I cannot say, after reading that excerpt, that he did anything wrong, though. At some point the woman must take some responsibility for her actions... not for coerced actions of course, but I see no real coercion. All I see is a woman and a man in a consensual relationship, which was later determined to be non-consensual because she liked him.

What magic of logic is this?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I understand what you're saying. I think you might be drawing the wrong conclusions based on the word 'admire.'

What Louis is admitting to is that these women only said yes because they would've been put in an awkward situation because of their admiration for him if they said no. Louis forced them to make a decision they didn't want to make. Mind you, these women weren't 'in love' with Louis like a husband and wife or a boyfriend and girlfriend. Mutual agreement on a relationship lowers certain social barriers to behavior. Same thing (in my mind) with Trump, the women who have come forward never said they forced his penis into them, no, it was that he let himself kiss them, touch them and walk in on them while they were changing. They 'let' him because he was the boss, the owner, the wealthy and powerful guest. Who are they to say 'no' to that?

That's also part of why a lot of revelations are coming forward now. Men and women who, in the past, may have been afraid to come forward are seeing the men who assaulted or harassed them in positions of power that would allow them to do the same thing to other men and women. Kevin Spacey, Bill O'Reillly, Donald Trump, Roy Moore, Louis CK, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Clinton. These men and women feel emboldened to come forward for a variety of reasons. The point is, the accusers deserve a chance to be heard before being written off as liars or political attackers.

Moore's story is already changing, now he's claiming he can't remember rather than he didn't do it. He's also admitted that he liked hanging out with young girls when he was in his 30's, but he claims he was a gentleman.

a reply to: links234

What Louis is admitting to is that these women only said yes because they would've been put in an awkward situation because of their admiration for him if they said no. Louis forced them to make a decision they didn't want to make.

I can understand that if the person in power has some sort of control over the woman involved. What, in this case, was the control Louis had?

Let's think of it in terms of implied threats: in my two examples, a boss could make an implied threat of "do it or I'll either fire you or make your life miserable at work." A producer could make a similar implied threat, with neither having to actually say a word about it. They have the authority to do so. What authority did Louis C. K. have over his 'victims'? Was he their employer? Did he have any business pull that could have adversely impacted them? Was he in a position to take anything from them other than his presence and attention?

The point is, the accusers deserve a chance to be heard before being written off as liars or political attackers.

I haven't written anyone off. I do not believe the accusations, but that is different from discounting them. I would still be interested in hearing what they have to say and what evidence they may have to support them. If Roy Moore did what they accuse him of, he should face the full brunt of prosecution.

The difference is, from the replies I have read, that Moore's opponents do not want to give that same benefit to Roy Moore. Ironic... or perhaps intentional?

That makes me believe Moore instead of his accusers. If he is guilty, what does anyone have to lose by hearing him out and giving him a chance at justice?

TheRedneck