Jump to content

The Media vs. Roy Moore


Wild74

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 271
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

6 minutes ago, btex said:

HAHAHA I love it. Cant admit wrong so try and turn it. I would have thought you would base an opinion on some evidence. I also find it hilarious you are so young you believe that way back in the ancient times of the late 70s and early 80s men in their 30s were dating high school girls NORMALLY. HAHAHAHAAH it is very funny

I believe in facts not allegations. You ought to be glad young people still believe in innocent til proven guilty. 

God forbid someday someone makes a claim against you and the only defense is he said she said. I would hope then that you would understand not convicting people off hear say. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, btex said:

Ok so show me how normal it is. Here is your big chance. Show that lawyers in Alabama normally dated high school age girls in 60s and 70s and 80s. And what exactly would be my baseless claims? Please point them out. 

I never claim lawyers date younger girls. I just said that the practice of older men and younger women was pretty common.  You keep making these ridiculous arguments where you try to force me to provide evidence to you as to why/how he didn't do it. That's not how it works guy. You accuse someone of something then you are responsible for providing. Proof of that claim. And no accuser has. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, btex said:

You seem to be having issues with the whole convict thing. First where did I convict him? He admitted to dating teens. Moore admitted that. That would be Moore who said it. What I had issue with was the use of the word NORMAL. It is not NORMAL for a 30+ year old LAWYER to date multiple high school girls. 

Now you first claimed about kicking him out of congress. Well not once did I mention that because he was in fact not in congress. You brought in the Ray Moore thing but didnt back that with a link. In my experience when that happens the person doesnt want to show where they saw that. Next you changed the date from the fact of late 70s to 60s. That says you want to make it appear to be further back. You then wanted to show normal for 70s by asking if I lived there when in fact you didnt nor did you live in that time period. You then have made claims I based everything on allegations, I showed I didnt not and based it on his words about this (dating teens) and his other views. 

 

 

So you saw several videos should be easy to provide links to those to back what you said. 

 

As for the choice to try the innocent till proven guilty claim, well I didnt say he was guilty of a crime but based on his own words he did in fact date teens and asked their mothers permission. And add in his opinion on the Amendments and when America was great I see lots of red flags with the guy. Then you can add in the strange speech his wife did for him.

 

None of the convicted him of anything. I would hope young people would understand what CONVICTING means. As for your analogy, stay in coaching long enough and you will witness it but I hope you never have to deal with it personally

If the evidence is not enough for you to convict him, then why is it believable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“It’s not so uncommon that people would necessarily look at it askance,” said Nicholas Syrett, a University of Kansas professor"

from the Washington Post where the story first broke

“The South has a much longer history of allowing minors to marry, and obviously there’s some courtship or dating — whatever you want to call it — leading up to that.”

 

Seattle times

Ashley Easter, who grew up in a fundamentalist Baptist church where courting was the norm for teenagers, said, “That was the first thing I thought of with Roy Moore.” In her church community in Lynchburg, Virginia, Easter said, fathers had complete control over whom their daughters were allowed to date, and she could see how a father might set his teen daughter up with a much older man."

https://www.cbeinternational.org/persons/ashley-easter

there is Ashley's web page for background on her. 

http://www.smh.com.au/national/young-women-in-the-1970s-versus-today--who-has-it-better-20170306-gus6bw.html

this story is a women who was 15 when she meet her husband who looks quit considerably older.

 

Do i continue to do research for you or do you get the point??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/27432-bombshell-have-roy-moores-main-accusers-claims-been-debunked

 

tbis one is just a good read for why not to believe them. 

 

The only good good reason I have come across to actually believe the accusers is that the post did a good job in getting testimony and finding accusers. Which is not good enough for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, btex said:

What you continue to avoid, and yes I do mean avoid is that MOORE admitted dating teens. HE ADMITTED IT. And while your far right wing news site might be your go too, they received their information from Gateway Pundit. A site that lies consistently. You are welcome to be a far right wing person but dont try to convince me with that site. This is the same site who was wrong on Vegas shooting etc etc etc. 

True or not, this pales in comparison to the sexual predators that have been given a total pass simply because they were dimocrats.  Older men dating minors in those days was not the "crime" that is being portrayed by the liberal media today for purely political purposes.  Where was the same media outrage about Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy who committed REAL sexual crimes?   This whole sordid mess is nothing but drummed up outrage to try and influence an election ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that it matters now since Moore has lost, but my only question for his accusers is " where were you 20 years ago when he was fighting for his 10 commandments statue?"  One would think that wouldve been the perfect time to expose him for the monster he's alleged to be.  Its all good, for every R that all these allegations take down, you can count a half dozen Ds who go down right beside them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, btex said:

What you continue to avoid, and yes I do mean avoid is that MOORE admitted dating teens. HE ADMITTED IT. And while your far right wing news site might be your go too, they received their information from Gateway Pundit. A site that lies consistently. You are welcome to be a far right wing person but dont try to convince me with that site. This is the same site who was wrong on Vegas shooting etc etc etc. 

It did go on, but you're in complete denial.  I admit that it is not normal, and by today's standards it isn't.  Where do you think the terms trophy wife and sugar daddy come from ?  Yes it was frowned upon, but it happened.  Today there is a term for older women that chase after younger men.  Look at the age of Consent across the United States :   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States .  The only southern States that don't have 16 are Louisiana, Florida, Tennessee, and Virginia.  Why they don't have 17 for the State of Texas is beyond me.  Every young girl except the 14 year old and Beverly Nelson have stated the relationships were consensual.  Throw those out, we're down to two cases.  The only evidence we have that these things happened is a signature in a yearbook.  I believe the 14 year old, but not Beverly.  I wouldn't vote for him, because I believe the 14 year old.  

 

It's the same for the Matt Lauer case, the other day a woman came out that she had a consensual affair with him.  What's the purpose of the interview.  We've heard about numerous affairs in the entertainment business.  What I can't believe that we haven't heard is sexual assault claims against Rock Stars.  About the only one's we've heard about are R. Kelly and Russell Simmons.  I can't think of many Rock Stars that haven't slept with an underage girl.  We're probably talking about millions of girls over the years that were underage, but willing to sleep with a Rock Star.  Jerry Lee Lewis stock went down after he married his 13 year old cousin, but he wasn't prosecuted.  The only one's that I remember that have been found guilty were Chuck Berry, Gary Glitter, Tupac Shakur, and Anthony Kiedis.  Michael Jackson was charged twice for sexually assaulting children, but was found not  guilty both times.  To say that it doesn't go on in today's world is naive at best.  Roy Moore was never charged only accused.  Numerous stars have been accused of sexual assault, but not many convictions.  School Teachers on the other hand are convicted almost daily across America.  I hear of at least three a week just on my AOL newsfeed, that's not counting the others that aren't reported on there.  We know it's easier to convict them, but I haven't seen many elected officials that have been found guilty.  As with the Al Franken case, he could have easily been convicted if the statute of limitations wasn't up, because there are actual photo's of him doing it.  The same can't be said for Caesar, because there are no photo's or videos.  It's just the #MeToo thing that everyone wants to jump on board.  

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎12‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 8:52 PM, Youngcoach123 said:

What's really funny is how emotionally charged your post are over rumors. Laughing in texts to cover your contempt for someone who doesn't believe your baseless claims. 

Careful, Karma can visit your family over this post.

 

You know when somebody makes fun of special needs person, they grow up and one of their kids turn out to be special needs.

  • Stinks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/15/2017 at 7:09 AM, btex said:

Well you can thriw his out he didnt ask fathers and they didnt set it up. He went to divorced mothers and asked. Next what you just provided was from an ABUSE victim advocate. I would like to thank you for making my case for me. Debate may not be your thing. If the evidence you use paints the point you are trying to prove in a bad light DONT USE IT. Now I love the cherry picked article from the Sydney Herald, the year of this cherry picked item, 1971. Heck even the graph in the Australian article says it was not normal. I do really appreciate you proving me correct though. THANKS

 

Next if it were NORMAL we would see lawyers and judges with spouses 12+ years younger, but that is not the case. Again the evidence is that it is not normal. 

Delusional. Smh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take old Bill Clinton.  Based on reports I've read, he constantly flies out to his pedophile buddy's Island on the Lolita Express.  There, I suppose they seduce 12 yr olds.  But nary a peep from the MSM.  Since these young girls are kept prisoner on that Island, they can't speak for themselves, so their fate is left to the MSM, who doesn't dare attack Bill.  Anyone else find that strange?  But hey, maybe I'm just taking the word of right wing sites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, REBgp said:

Take old Bill Clinton.  Based on reports I've read, he constantly flies out to his pedophile buddy's Island on the Lolita Express.  There, I suppose they seduce 12 yr olds.  But nary a peep from the MSM.  Since these young girls are kept prisoner on that Island, they can't speak for themselves, so their fate is left to the MSM, who doesn't dare attack Bill.  Anyone else find that strange?  But hey, maybe I'm just taking the word of right wing sites.

The double standard when it comes to the Clintons is nauseating ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most on the Clintons are flat out lies.  Just because you keep repeating the lies over and over again don't make them true.  That is the problem with right-wing conspiracy media.  They whip up their base, and the base demands prosecution.  However, the Justice Dept. has to go on facts and not conspiracy theories.

 

Which one you on this website will go to the pizza parlor, and shoot it up demanding to see the underground tunnel the Clinton's use for their debauchery?  LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, CENTEXFAN said:

Most on the Clintons are flat out lies.  Just because you keep repeating the lies over and over again don't make them true.  That is the problem with right-wing conspiracy media.  They whip up their base, and the base demands prosecution.  However, the Justice Dept. has to go on facts and not conspiracy theories.

 

Which one you on this website will go to the pizza parlor, and shoot it up demanding to see the underground tunnel the Clinton's use for their debauchery?  LOL

If they're lies about the Clintons then by your logic they are also lies about Moore.  You don't pay people a settlement if it's not true.  They sound very truthful in their accounts, as does the woman that was 14 at the time.  http://www.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-sexual-assault-allegations-against-bill-clinton-2017-11/#leslie-millwee-4

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
  • Mr. P changed the title to The Media vs. Roy Moore

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...