The Real Decision With Respect to Roy Moore
Nov 15, 2017 11:09:26 #
mongo wrote:
Agree with you on Duke, but not Clarence Thomas. Nothing ever came out vindicating him.I agree with you, They should be held accountable for attempting to assassinate
someones character with lies, and suffer the consequences of their false allegations!
SEMPER FI
someones character with lies, and suffer the consequences of their false allegations!
SEMPER FI
Nov 15, 2017 11:14:43 #
JFlorio
Loc: Seminole Florida
He has been accused of sexual assault. No age limit to that.
Tgards79 wrote:
No, you are wrong, I did believe them. He was accused of having affairs with adult women, which I thought was bad and morally bankrupt, but not an impeachable offense. Roy Moore is accused of groping and molesting teenagers, which is far worse.
Nov 15, 2017 11:34:33 #
desparado wrote:
this man is bad news I don't know why one voter would want him elected through off the court twice we got a nut in the wh we don't need another one from either party.
despot: How can a nut call someone a nut?
Nov 15, 2017 11:38:38 #
just pretend he wasn't a Republican and look at his past that should do it.
I never vote for an incumbent and ill vote the best man or woman in any party
I never vote for an incumbent and ill vote the best man or woman in any party
ldsuttonjr wrote:
despot: How can a nut call someone a nut?
Nov 15, 2017 11:40:15 #
mongo wrote:
I agree with you, They should be held accountable for attempting to assassinate
someones character with lies, and suffer the consequences of their false allegations!
SEMPER FI
someones character with lies, and suffer the consequences of their false allegations!
SEMPER FI
Mongo,
I am an old Marine like you. I served 17 years in the Corp. Some of the most wonderful years of my life. I am a Persian Gulf Veteran. Semper Fi!
Nov 15, 2017 11:41:43 #
desparado wrote:
just pretend he wasn't a Republican and look at his past that should do it.
I never vote for an incumbent and ill vote the best man or woman in any party
I never vote for an incumbent and ill vote the best man or woman in any party
despot: Who knows anything substance about these claims. Look at his last 30 years in Public Service.....impeccable!
Nov 15, 2017 11:59:49 #
kicked off the court twice impeccable
ldsuttonjr wrote:
despot: Who knows anything substance about these claims. Look at his last 30 years in Public Service.....impeccable!
Check out topic: Biden Signs Five-Year FAA Reauthorization Bill Into Law
Nov 15, 2017 12:22:29 #
desparado wrote:
Right, incredibly far from impeccable!kicked off the court twice impeccable
Nov 15, 2017 12:23:07 #
ldsuttonjr wrote:
Twice kicked off the court!!!! You call that "impeccable"?despot: Who knows anything substance about these claims. Look at his last 30 years in Public Service.....impeccable!
Nov 15, 2017 12:35:08 #
Our whole way of life, our country and our beliefs are based on the fact that everyone is innocent until proven, in a court of law, to be guilty and then punished. So far in Moore's case their has been a lot of false accusations including fake, anonymous reporting by the news media and you are saying that based on these false accusations the man, even though he may be innocent should be punished? I suggest you move to England or some other communist or socialist country were you are guilty and must prove your innocence.
Nov 15, 2017 12:38:15 #
tiffanys wrote:
First of all, this has been the opposite of "anonymous" -- the women have come forward and been interviewed and filmed with their charges. Second, Roy Moore is not on trial. He is up for election. Your standard is not "innocent until proven guilty," rather it is "should this man represent Alabama in the U.S. Senate." Only Alabama voters can determine that, by your own read of the situation, at the time you step into the voting booth. So -- don't hide behind "innocent until proven guilty." There is no time to determine that in a court. Make your own call.Our whole way of life, our country and our beliefs are based on the fact that everyone its innocent until proven, in a court of law, to be guilty and then punished. So far in Moore's case their has been of Ben false accusations including fake and anonymous reporting by the news media and you are saying the man even though he may be innocent? I suggest you move to England or some other communist or socialist country were you guilty and must prove your innocence.
Check out topic: The Rainbow Mafia’s Foolish Alliance
Nov 15, 2017 12:40:42 #
Tgards79 wrote:
Moore's defenders are saying "innocent until proven guilty." But he is not on trial.
Except in the 'court of public opinion' of course.
Tgards79 wrote:
He is running for the Senate. Alabamans have to decide whether they should send this man to Washington to represent them in the Senate. The standard is not "innocent until proven guilty." It is what do Alabamans think about this man based on what they have read by the time Election Day occurs.
Not only is he not 'innocent until proven guilty', he hasn't even been arrested. Not only is there no case, there isn't even 'probable cause'. and yet here we sit, jurors in the court of public opinion.
Tgards79 wrote:
There will be no trial by then to determine either guilt or innocence.
That's right. No arrest, no charges, no trial. Just a ceaseless smear campaign.
Tgards79 wrote:
So that cannot be the standard. Alabamans have to make their own judgment on the merits. You have to ask yourself, why would these women make this up out of whole cloth, throwing their lives into utter disarray? Simply to try to swing an election? That seems unlikely to me. Their stories are detailed
Like I always say whenever someone does something that, on the surface, makes no sense. Follow the money. There's money changing hands here, I just know it, I can almost taste it.
Tgards79 wrote:
Moore has not denied that he dated teenagers, and plenty of people seem to have corroborated that he hung around in malls and dated teenage girls.
OK, and teenage girls dated him right back. What does that prove? What does that even allude to? That he liked having young girls around? Big whoop. At least they were girls.
Tgards79 wrote:
The important thing, Alabamans: judge the man by yourself, now, based on what you have read.
Ding! There it is. There's the 'money shot'. "[J]udge the man by yourself, now, based on what you have read". Based on what you have read. Do it. Now.
Tgards79 wrote:
Don't hide behind "innocent until proven guilty" because that would be true if he shot a man yesterday in cold blood.
Also be true if he blew up the White House, or knifed an infant, stole a car, or committed any other crime under the sun, but not for what he's accused of, right? No-one gets to 'hide behind' the presumption of innocence. The presumption of innocence is a maxim that attempts to ensure cooler heads prevail and justice is served. This (very wise) assumption is based on the cast-iron fact that it is impossible to prove a negative. He cannot possibly prove that he did not do these things, hence the burden of proof always rests with the accuser to prove he did do these things.
Tgards79 wrote:
Just because there is no time for a trial does not preclude guilt. You have to figure that out yourself on this one.
Yeah. No time for an arrest, either. Wait! Does that mean he's 'above the law'?
Nov 15, 2017 12:47:29 #
It has been proven that most of these women's testimonies were not totally true. And yes you are right that people must decide who represents them in congress. But you are saying that because there are unproven statements against someone they should be punished. Man I bet you even believe people should be convicted of hate crimes even though there is no hard evidence to indicate hate was involved.
Nov 15, 2017 12:47:51 #
Larry the Legend wrote:
Larry, my point is: this is not a trial. It is an election. It's not about proving guilt or innocence. There is no time for that. You've got about a month to decide. Maybe some more information will come to bear, or maybe not. You have to decide whether this is a set-up or it is true. Forget the law, he has not been arrested, there is no trial. It's whether you think he is a worthy representative of Alabama, based on what you know.Yeah. No time for an arrest, either. Wait! Does that mean he's 'above the law'?
Nov 15, 2017 12:49:09 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out topic: America's Next Vice-President!