Roy Moore is needed in the GOP to improve family values.
Bad Bob wrote:
Roy Moore will help Refublican Family values Jr!!
BB: Roy Moore can't help democrat family values....Most of us are still looking for democrat values....needles in a haystack!
ldsuttonjr wrote:
BB: Roy Moore can't help democrat family values....Most of us are still looking for democrat values....needles in a haystack!
Jr., Moore is going to help the Reflubs with Reflub Family Values. Got it?
Bad Bob wrote:
Jr., Moore is going to help the Reflubs with Reflub Family Values. Got it?
bb: You have nothing I want!....Got it? Work a little harder on your spelling!....Got it? Naw....I didn't think so!
First POTUS to prove himself a fraud!
First queer president, first transgender whatever, those lips were made for sucking!
Loki wrote:
Once more, Kevyn. I have heard the same accusations about you. They must be true because someone said them. Remember all those young girls? I have heard several people accuse you of being a sexual predator so you must be one. According to you, no proof is necessary. All you have to do is point a finger.
No Loki, little kevvie poo loved the boys, so much so, she now has a big one of her own as a husband.
Bad Bob wrote:
Jr., Moore is going to help the Reflubs with Reflub Family Values. Got it?
I'm sorry -- it's been awhile since I've been on OPP. Is this comment from Bad Bob some sort of alien code?
Or is he normally this clueless?
OK, let's assume for the sake of argument that Moore is innocent and that all those things that he's accused of are false.
He still was removed from the Alabama Supreme Court twice for refusing to honor a federal court order. First, for erecting a monument to the Ten Commandments in the center of the Supreme Court building. Last I heard, it was illegal for the government at any level to promote any one religion over another. Something about that pesky First Amendment or whatever ... Second time was for instructing all the county clerks in the state to ignore the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage and not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. That has to do with the Supremacy clause in the Constitution and the authority of 'law and order' as based on the federal judiciary system.
Last time I read the Constitution, it maintained that there was freedom of religion, and that there was no state religion ... that same Amendment that all the religionists keep quoting. We are a nation of laws, and the Constitution is one of them, and to declare that your personal interpretation of the Bible is supreme over an entire society and all its laws is pretty arrogant. We are a multi-cultural, multi-religious nation, or were the last I checked. To maintain that your fundamentalist biblical views are of a higher authority and that all which think otherwise should bow down to those views such as Moore has done is clearly beyond the pale and illustrates why he should not be elected, regardless of the moral turpitude that he displays. Oh, and by the way, a charge of moral turpitude doesn't require a finding of guilt or innocence, it's a personal judgement based on what you have heard or seen (or think you have.)
lfdavis wrote:
I'm sorry -- it's been awhile since I've been on OPP. Is this comment from Bad Bob some sort of alien code?
Or is he normally this clueless?
Actually, you caught him on a good day.
wuzblynd wrote:
How does a accusation equal guilt? Cause someone said don't cut it. U want sexual predators, check democrats, now there's a sick crowd.
It doesn’t as it leaves some doubt, however numerous complaints from numerous un associated women backed up by witnesses who collaborate their claims and physical evidence is plenty to convince any thinking person Moore was a child predator.
Kevyn wrote:
It doesn’t as it leaves some doubt, however numerous complaints from numerous un associated women backed up by witnesses who collaborate their claims and physical evidence is plenty to convince any thinking person Moore was a child predator.
Physical evidence? You mean the yearbook?
Kevyn wrote:
It doesn’t as it leaves some doubt, however numerous complaints from numerous un associated women backed up by witnesses who collaborate their claims and physical evidence is plenty to convince any thinking person Moore was a child predator.
Physical Evidence? Do you mean the kind that can be proven through, Forensic Science? Not just hearsay.
lfdavis wrote:
I'm sorry -- it's been awhile since I've been on OPP. Is this comment from Bad Bob some sort of alien code?
Or is he normally this clueless?
Ifdavis: BB has been very busy using the Question mark with his drivel!
Kevyn wrote:
It doesn’t as it leaves some doubt, however numerous complaints from numerous un associated women backed up by witnesses who collaborate their claims and physical evidence is plenty to convince any thinking person Moore was a child predator.
The trouble is, that there is no physical evidence against Moore and the witness testimony is falling apart, including testimony from her own grandmother, that she didn't have a phone at the time she claims that More called on the phone, she didn't have.
Like I said, it's really hard to see things from a liberals point of view, the facts keep getting in the way.
Homestead wrote:
The trouble is, that there is no physical evidence against Moore and the witness testimony is falling apart, including testimony from her own grandmother, that she didn't have a phone at the time she claims that More called on the phone, she didn't have.
Like I said, it's really hard to see things from a liberals point of view, the facts keep getting in the way.
One of their major problems to be sure.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.