quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

yep, hes sposed to quit tomorrow.
Over bum pinching
Conyers has stepped down.
Why is it only dems are taking responsibility against credible accusations.
The repubs are now fully behind trump and a credibly accused child molester.
Raising money for a credibly accused child molester, and voting for an accused child molester.
Amazing, the talibangelical right are all about the child in the womb, but dont give a damn about the child at 14.
You should watch this....I know you wont, but putting it up because its this hypocrisy that is ugly
This is a woman who claims doug jones wants to kill babies at 8 months, but doesnt believe the accusers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK2uTVS7QmE

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

this is a good one too:

Christian evangelicals = the Taliban.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

this is a good one too:

Christian evangelicals = the Taliban.

"Howlers"

quote:

...but dont give a damn about the child at 14.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

And the dems in the senate are calling for Franken to resign?

Yep, democrats support and condone their own sexual predators.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

...but dont give a damn about the child at 14.

quote:

Apparently, the GOP is now the party of CHILD MOLESTATION! At least the media tell me that's the meaning of President Trump's endorsement of Senate candidate Roy Moore.

Are we allowed to mention that Moore denies the charges?

It's hard to disprove accusations from 40 years ago -- that's why we have statutes of limitations -- but, despite that, there are a surprising number of problems with the allegations against Moore.

One accuser has been called a liar by her own stepson, who says he's voting for Moore. Another neglected to mention that Moore sent her brother to prison.

In defense of one of Moore's accusers, Gloria Allred produced a yearbook allegedly signed by Moore, apparently in two different inks and giving his title as "D.A." He was not the district attorney and didn't sign his name that way. Allred refuses to produce the yearbook for handwriting analysis or to deny that it's a forgery.

Contrary to what you have heard one million times a day on TV, there aren't "multiple accusers." There are two, and that's including the one with the fishy yearbook inscription whose stepson says she's lying.

The other "accusers" claim he dated them when they were 16 to 19 years old and Moore was in his early 30s -- or younger than Jerry Seinfeld was (39) when he dated 17-year-old Shoshanna Lonstein.

That would also make Moore 15 years younger than Bill Clinton when he had a 22-year-old intern performing oral sex on him in the Oval Office. Moore's date "accusers" say he did nothing more than kiss them.

The media throw the dating claims in with the molestation claims so they can keep howling about "multiple accusers." In fact, only two women are alleging anything that, if true, would merit national attention.

TV anchors think it's very clever of them to ask anyone who isn't bowled over by the claims of Moore's (two) accusers: So you're calling the women "liars"?

Checkmate!

There's a lot of room between HE'S A CHILD MOLESTER and THE WOMEN ARE LIARS.

They could be misremembering. They could be confusing Moore with someone else. They could be suggestible. They could be delusional. They could have repeated the story to themselves so many times that they believe it. They could be really, really disgusted with Jerry Seinfeld.

The main accuser has gotten a lot of her facts wrong, such as where she was living at the time (she moved to another town 10 days after meeting Moore); the corner where she allegedly met Moore for their liaisons (she named a corner more than a mile away from her house, across a busy intersection); and when she began to get into trouble with boys and alcohol (it was before meeting Moore, not after).

It was 40 years ago! But it's just weeks before the election and that's the media's favorite time to produce wild accusations against Republicans.

Four days before the 1992 presidential election, Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh dropped an indictment of Reagan's defense secretary, Caspar Weinberger, which seemed to implicate President George H.W. Bush in a lie. Bush lost the election, and about a month later a judge threw out the indictment.

In the middle of the 2004 presidential campaign, CBS's Dan Rather produced forged documents allegedly proving that President George W. Bush had shirked his National Guard service decades earlier.

In September 2006, just before the midterm elections, the media released GOP congressman Mark Foley's creepy emails to House pages. No physical contact was alleged. The corpus delicti was that Foley told pages they looked "hot" in their soccer shorts.

The entire GOP was crucified by the media for not having discovered this "pedophile" in its midst. Republican congressmen who had never met Foley lost their seats because of the media's timing of the email release.

More than 20 years earlier, a Democratic congressman, Gerry Studds, who had actually buggered a 17-year-old page, indignantly defied his House censure and proudly stood for re-election. His outraged Massachusetts constituents elected him six more times. Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy denounced the "witch hunt" against Studds, saying his critics wanted "to torch the congressman for his private life."

When Studds died in 2006, The Washington Post's headline on his obituary was: Gerry Studds; Gay Pioneer in Congress. The New York Times' headline was, Gerry Studds Dies at 69; First Openly Gay Congressman.

I supported Rep. Mo Brooks in the primary, but Alabamians would be crazy to let the media vilification of Moore affect their vote. Moore's real crime is that he's a believing Christian who goes around wantonly quoting the Bible on sodomy. Journalists react to that like Linda Blair in "The Exorcist."

The media say that Republicans support Moore just because they want another GOP vote in the Senate. I support Moore just because I hate the media.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

this is a good one too:

Christian evangelicals = the Taliban.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

...but dont give a damn about the child at 14.

quote:

The Rev. Robert Franklin, professor of moral leadership at Emory University's Candler School of Theology in Atlanta, said The Washington Post's report about the Moore allegations represents a test of "moral consistency" for evangelicals.

"Evangelicals are steadily losing their moral authority in the larger public square by intensifying their uncritical loyalty to Donald Trump," Franklin wrote in an email. "Since this is Roy Moore and not Donald Trump, I think there may be significant disaffection with him, and increased demands for his removal from the ballot."

As for Moore himself, Franklin suggested there were "classic evangelical remedies" such as confession, prayer and remorse and isolation.

"Election to higher office is not one of them," Franklin wrote…

One of the Southern Baptist Convention's leading public policy experts, the Rev. Russell Moore, expressed dismay after the allegations against Judge Moore — no relation — surfaced on Thursday.

"Whether in the hills of Hollywood or the halls of power, it doesn't matter," the Rev. Moore tweeted. "This is true: sexual assault and child molestation are evil, unjust, satanic."...

Abortion policy also was evoked by Ed Cyzewski, a Kentucky-based seminary graduate and author, in a series of Twitter posts Friday questioning why some of his fellow evangelicals would continue to stand by Moore.

"Right now there are evangelicals who feel trapped," Cyzewski wrote. "They think Moore did something reprehensible, but believe abortion is evil."

quote:

...but dont give a damn about the child at 14.

quote:

When it comes to Judge Roy Moore, we are being asked how any of us could not immediately recognize his guilt, since the mounting evidence against him seems overwhelming. Plus, we seem to believe the bad reports about Hollywood moguls and celebrities and leftwing politicians. Why the double standard here?

First, all of us have biases, conscious or otherwise, and it's all too natural to defend people who are close to us and question people who are distant from us. For example, a devoted liberal Democrat would be far less likely to entertain an accusation against Barack Obama than against Ted Cruz. Conversely, a staunch conservative Republican would be much more likely to entertain an accusation against Obama than against Cruz.

This is reminiscent of the intense drama that unfolded when Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of crass and abusive behavior. Liberals rallied around Hill and conservatives stood with Thomas.

As much as we try to avoid partisan emotions, it's only human nature to have them, in which case we must always check to see if we're even making the attempt to be unbiased. Are we? Do we do our best to ask critical questions? Do we give the presumption of innocence to all, even if our first reaction is to condemn those we don't like? Do we weigh all accusations fairly?

Second, when it comes to Judge Moore, we're not just dealing with the possibility of double standards. We're also dealing with extreme skepticism towards leftwing media and extreme suspicion of the political system. So, what may appear to be an extraordinary display of hypocrisy, as conservative evangelicals stand by a man accused of abusive sexual contact with minors, may really be a display of distrust of the left.

Think back to the O. J. Simpson trial, which largely divided Americans between white and black. To many white Americans, the evidence against O. J. was absolutely damning, right down to his DNA all over the crime scene. How is it that so many black Americans didn't see it? Were they ignorant? Did they wink at murder? Was it impossible to think that a black hero was guilty?

Not at all. Instead, they deeply suspected the legal system, from the police to the courts to the jails. They had witnessed unequal treatment under the law. They had seen people framed. They had seen the innocent convicted and the guilty set free, hence their deep-seated suspicion.

Today, with President Trump shouting out "Fake News" on a regular basis and with millions of Americans agreeing, when a story starts with the Washington Post, red flags immediately go up. And when one of the most conservative senatorial candidates in decades comes under fierce attack right before the elections, a man with great loyalty among his followers, it's very easy for some to question his accusers rather than sympathize with them…

But before you condemn Moore's Alabama supporters, and before you write off other conservatives who have stood with him, bear in mind that double standards are not the whole story (or, perhaps, even part of the story). Rather, there is extreme suspicion of the left and deep recognition of how many enemies someone like Judge Moore really has. And with some claiming there is clear evidence that the yearbook signature is a forgery, everything else becomes questionable.

For those on the left who think I'm trying to excuse the inexcusable – meaning, giving Moore any benefit of the doubt even for a moment – just ask yourself how you would have responded if Fox News and Rush Limbaugh claimed to have evidence of Barack Obama sexually abusing minors. To my readers on the left, what would your first reaction be?

We all agree that if the charges against Moore are true then what he did is terribly ugly and evil, especially since he did so as a professing Christian and as someone in power. But let's not get carried away with double-standard accusations right now, especially against conservative Christians in Alabama. There's a lot more to the story that must be factored in.

quote:

...but dont give a damn about the child at 14.