One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Moore
Page <<first <prev 6 of 10 next> last>>
Nov 14, 2017 14:03:00   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
Sassy Lass wrote:
Yes, what a coincidence. Here's a thought: any new allegations, those newer than 38 years ago? How about something within the last year or so? Otherwise, perhaps he is "reformed!" Hallelujah!!!


Have you seen the so-called autograph? It looks like two different pens. Can you say forgery?

Reply
Nov 14, 2017 14:39:06   #
Sassy Lass
 
Loki wrote:
Have you seen the so-called autograph? It looks like two different pens. Can you say forgery?


An expert has already declared the signature as forged. I do believe there's something stinky going on in Denmark!

Reply
Nov 14, 2017 14:50:43   #
PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco
 
Carol Kelly wrote:
Here goes another character assassinated by the left. Why can't people wait for proof of guilt? This one was really dumb. The evidence against the accusers was significant.


Just wondering,what would you accept as proof of guilt in this specific case?

Reply
 
 
Nov 14, 2017 14:57:03   #
Sassy Lass
 
PaulPisces wrote:
Just wondering,what would you accept as proof of guilt in this specific case?


Just as any crime, there should be witnesses, corroborating evidence, and proof that a crime actually occurred. This "she said-he said" does not prove anything. In fact, that it took 38 years to come forward, that two of the accusers have a blemished record, the timing, all of this simply makes me believe this is more slimy tactics from the Left.

Your thoughts?

Reply
Nov 14, 2017 15:08:46   #
PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco
 
Sassy Lass wrote:
Just as any crime, there should be witnesses, corroborating evidence, and proof that a crime actually occurred. This "she said-he said" does not prove anything. In fact, that it took 38 years to come forward, that two of the accusers have a blemished record, the timing, all of this simply makes me believe this is more slimy tactics from the Left.

Your thoughts?


1 - There are generally no witnesses to sexual assault of women, unless there is a gang-rape situation.
2 - I think we need to define corroborating evidence. One woman shared her experience with others at the time it occurred. There have now been 5 women claiming to have had inappropriate advances from Moore. Are these corroborating evidence? I don't know.
3 - Though listing "proof that a crime actually occurred" as a separate condition, you still have not defined what "proof" is. Remember proof in a court of law means beyond a reasonable doubt.

Personally, I do not like anything about Moore and what he stands for.
But I also do not like to see attempts to try and convict people in the media (conservatives continue to attempt that with Obama and Clinton.)

So this is a conundrum. I do not know the answer, but I do know if proof is required we need to be clear about what constitutes proof.

Reply
Nov 14, 2017 15:28:03   #
Tgards79
 
Carol Kelly wrote:
Here goes another character assassinated by the left. Why can't people wait for proof of guilt? This one was really dumb. The evidence against the accusers was significant.
What evidence is that? Plenty are people are now quoted as saying Roy Moore used to hang around malls in that time frame, trolling for teens.

Reply
Nov 14, 2017 15:37:04   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
Tgards79 wrote:
What evidence is that? Plenty are people are now quoted as saying Roy Moore used to hang around malls in that time frame, trolling for teens.

Plenty of people are now quoted as saying Obama used to hang out around gay bathhouses. Using your standard of proof, our former president is a closet queen.

Reply
 
 
Nov 14, 2017 15:38:06   #
Carol Kelly
 
Liberty Tree wrote:
Let me ask you which ones are worse. Is it the left who immediately want to destroy him before truth is determined or the RINOS who immediately want to trow him under the bus because they know they cannot own him?


Tied!

Reply
Nov 14, 2017 15:45:20   #
Carol Kelly
 
PaulPisces wrote:
Just wondering,what would you accept as proof of guilt in this specific case?


Absolute proof, yes. But that cannot be obtained after all these years and its he said, she said. Not admissible in a court of law, only on Fake news. And in the Senate! Moore's wife is into it. She believes him and as long as she believes him, I'm with her. The RINOs want to get rid of him.. Hes a Christian. Fought to keep the Ten Commandments on the Courthhouse lawn, opposes abortion, among other things. If the people of Alabama are so weak (and I don't think they are), then may God help them. I know a lot of the
Good people of Alabama, related to many of them and they're not stupid.

Reply
Nov 14, 2017 15:45:45   #
Kevyn
 
Sassy Lass wrote:
Just as any crime, there should be witnesses, corroborating evidence, and proof that a crime actually occurred. This "she said-he said" does not prove anything. In fact, that it took 38 years to come forward, that two of the accusers have a blemished record, the timing, all of this simply makes me believe this is more slimy tactics from the Left.

Your thoughts?
it isn’t he said she said, it is he said she said, she said, she said, she said she said all with collaboration from people the women confided in. Add to that his bumbled denial on Hannity where he excused dating young teen girls while in his 30s by claiming he asked their mother’s permission, what a joke.

Reply
Nov 14, 2017 15:46:05   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
PaulPisces wrote:
1 - There are generally no witnesses to sexual assault of women, unless there is a gang-rape situation.
2 - I think we need to define corroborating evidence. One woman shared her experience with others at the time it occurred. There have now been 5 women claiming to have had inappropriate advances from Moore. Are these corroborating evidence? I don't know.
3 - Though listing "proof that a crime actually occurred" as a separate condition, you still have not defined what "proof" is. Remember proof in a court of law means beyond a reasonable doubt.

Personally, I do not like anything about Moore and what he stands for.
But I also do not like to see attempts to try and convict people in the media (conservatives continue to attempt that with Obama and Clinton.)

So this is a conundrum. I do not know the answer, but I do know if proof is required we need to be clear about what constitutes proof.
1 - There are generally no witnesses to sexual ass... (show quote)


You don't find it the least bit odd that throughout a fairly tumultuous career spanning decades, none of these women saw fit to come forward while the statute of limitations was still in effect? Perhaps they were afraid of what would happen in court, when they would be cross examined under oath?
You don't find it odd that none of these women saw fit to come forth back in the primary?
You don't find it odd that they had a blanket cure for amnesia as soon as it became apparent that Moore's opponent was losing badly?
You don't find it odd that one of the women claiming criminal conduct has falsely accused at least three other men, all clergy, of the same thing; and that this same woman lied about her age at the time of the alleged incident?
She has also been divorced three times. She seems to have problems with interpersonal relationships.
As for the others, one is a volunteer worker for Moore's opponent whose memory conveniently returned after lo these many years when her boss started losing badly.
The "signature" in the yearbook is being investigated as a forgery.
Sexual predators don't "get over it;" they continue their predations. The only allegations against Moore are from questionable accusers and are nearly forty years old. If Moore was a predator, there would have been other accusations a little bit closer to the statute of limitations.
Of course, that would require a trial, and some proof other than someone's accusation.

Reply
 
 
Nov 14, 2017 15:51:42   #
Carol Kelly
 
Loki wrote:
Plenty of people are now quoted as saying Obama used to hang out around gay bathhouses. Using your standard of proof, our former president is a closet queen.


No, but I do believe that he's in a same sex marriage and that is why he fought so hard to "change " America. Among other things. Look at how the LGBTQ have grown in influence. And my standard is the law. In England, you are guilty til proven innocent.
We use their law of precedent, but here we are innocent until proven guilty. That's the way it should be. If I'm accused wrongly, I hope someone remembers that and I have a chance. Did I answer your question? Where do you find fault with me on this?

Reply
Nov 14, 2017 15:53:30   #
Carol Kelly
 
Kevyn wrote:
it isn’t he said she said, it is he said she said, she said, she said, she said she said all with collaboration from people the women confided in. Add to that his bumbled denial on Hannity where he excused dating young teen girls while in his 30s by claiming he asked their mother’s permission, what a joke.


You are the joker!

Reply
Nov 14, 2017 15:53:45   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
Carol Kelly wrote:
No, but I do believe that he's in a same sex marriage and that is why he fought so hard to "change " America. Among other things. Look at how the LGBTQ have grown in influence. And my standard is the law. In England, you are guilty til proven innocent.
We use their law of precedent, but here we are innocent until proven guilty. That's the way it should be. If I'm accused wrongly, I hope someone remembers that and I have a chance. Did I answer your question? Where do you find fault with me on this?
No, but I do believe that he's in a same sex marri... (show quote)


I was replying to Tgards.
I guess I misposted. Oops. Sorry.

Reply
Nov 14, 2017 16:46:57   #
Sassy Lass
 
Loki wrote:
You don't find it the least bit odd that throughout a fairly tumultuous career spanning decades, none of these women saw fit to come forward while the statute of limitations was still in effect? Perhaps they were afraid of what would happen in court, when they would be cross examined under oath?
You don't find it odd that none of these women saw fit to come forth back in the primary?
You don't find it odd that they had a blanket cure for amnesia as soon as it became apparent that Moore's opponent was losing badly?
You don't find it odd that one of the women claiming criminal conduct has falsely accused at least three other men, all clergy, of the same thing; and that this same woman lied about her age at the time of the alleged incident?
She has also been divorced three times. She seems to have problems with interpersonal relationships.
As for the others, one is a volunteer worker for Moore's opponent whose memory conveniently returned after lo these many years when her boss started losing badly.
The "signature" in the yearbook is being investigated as a forgery.
Sexual predators don't "get over it;" they continue their predations. The only allegations against Moore are from questionable accusers and are nearly forty years old. If Moore was a predator, there would have been other accusations a little bit closer to the statute of limitations.
Of course, that would require a trial, and some proof other than someone's accusation.
You don't find it the least bit odd that throughou... (show quote)


Well said!

Reply
Page <<first <prev 6 of 10 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.