[link]       Four different women are accusing him of doing this when he was a district attorney.  Who's Online | Find Members | Private Messages
Questions
Quizzes
Articles
My Journal
Forums
Quests. | Journs. | Gen. | News | Quiz | Links | TV | Music | Movies | Games | Sports | Sug. | Lit. | Jokes | Artcls. | Newb | O.S.
AL GOP senate candidate Roy Moore accused of making sexual advances toward underage girls

Prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 24 Next (showing 151-175 of 587)

Back to Thread List
Bottom Last Post

13 days ago - Friday 11/10/17 - 11:22:40 AM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 11/10/17 - 11:15:57 AM CowDung wrote:
Fine, I'm the bad guy.
On Friday 11/10/17 - 11:21:33 AM birdsong4j wrote:
It's extremely disappointing that you're just OK with this. I thought you were a better human being than that.


Maybe they should just execute him. You obviously think that he's beyond redemption.
13 days ago - Friday 11/10/17 - 11:23:38 AM EST (GMT-5)
I don't believe in the death penalty.
13 days ago - Friday 11/10/17 - 11:25:21 AM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 11/10/17 - 11:19:16 AM petitefleur wrote:
He shouldn't be employedin a position where the moral standard is set to a high bar.


Like the Senate? Where guys like the Kennedy, Byrd, Gore Sr. have made careers? Even President Clinton got a pass for his sexual assaults...

13 days ago - Friday 11/10/17 - 11:25:54 AM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 11/10/17 - 11:23:38 AM birdsong4j wrote:
I don't believe in the death penalty.


Then what do you expect him to do? Just kill himself?
13 days ago - Friday 11/10/17 - 11:32:31 AM EST (GMT-5)
I don't give a f*ck what he does, but this:
On Friday 11/10/17 - 11:19:16 AM petitefleur wrote:
He shouldn't be employedin a position where the moral standard is set to a high bar.


The people who make laws and policy that directly affect all of our lives definitely count as being "employed in a position where the moral standard is set to a high bar."
All I've said throughout this thread is he shouldn't be a senator. You're the one who's been making bullsh*t, disingenuous statements about how I think he should never be employed again at all, or I think he should just die. So f*ck off.
13 days ago - Friday 11/10/17 - 11:34:51 AM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 11/10/17 - 11:19:16 AM petitefleur wrote:
He shouldn't be employedin a position where the moral standard is set to a high bar.
On Friday 11/10/17 - 11:25:21 AM CowDung wrote:
Like the Senate? Where guys like the Kennedy, Byrd, Gore Sr. have made careers? Even President Clinton got a pass for his sexual assaults...


13 days ago - Friday 11/10/17 - 11:36:32 AM EST (GMT-5)
Keep trying to deflect from the fact that you're defending potentially electing a child molester.
A thousand other men could have committed sexual assault and been elected, but you're still defending this one. There's no way around that. You are defending potentially electing a child molester. You are the problem.
13 days ago - Friday 11/10/17 - 11:39:53 AM EST (GMT-5)
I guess I don't believe that anyone is beyond redemption. I think that 40 years can change people, and what they were then usually isn't what they are now- - particularly since there is nothing to indicate that the alleged activities have continued beyond the 1979 timeframe.

13 days ago - Friday 11/10/17 - 11:42:41 AM EST (GMT-5)
Yes, so in your world, he just gets to skip all the parts that generally come BEFORE redemption - you know, admitting your wrongdoing, paying a price for it, apologizing to the person you wronged and trying to make amends with them if possible.

He's done exactly none of that. And you're still defending him. You don't "believe redemption is possible," you just want him to face zero consequences whatsoever.
13 days ago - Friday 11/10/17 - 11:43:16 AM EST (GMT-5)
If she had been four at the time, rather than fourteen, would that make a difference to you right now?
13 days ago - Friday 11/10/17 - 11:50:34 AM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 11/10/17 - 11:23:38 AM birdsong4j wrote:
I don't believe in the death penalty.
On Friday 11/10/17 - 11:25:54 AM CowDung wrote:
Then what do you expect him to do? Just kill himself?

I mean...
13 days ago - Friday 11/10/17 - 12:52:58 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 11/10/17 - 11:43:16 AM birdsong4j wrote:
If she had been four at the time, rather than fourteen, would that make a difference to you right now?


Yes, that would make a difference. I think if the victim was prepubescent, it indicates more of a pathology. I suspect that you would agree that it is far more acceptable for a 15 year old to have sexual relations with a 14 year old than with a 4 year old, right?
13 days ago - Friday 11/10/17 - 1:06:40 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 11/10/17 - 11:42:41 AM birdsong4j wrote:
He's done exactly none of that. And you're still defending him. You don't "believe redemption is possible," you just want him to face zero consequences whatsoever.


If his actions put him in legal jeopardy, then as I already stated, he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

13 days ago - Friday 11/10/17 - 1:31:05 PM EST (GMT-5)
Statute of limitations on sexual assault shouldn't be a thing.
13 days ago - Friday 11/10/17 - 1:59:04 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 11/10/17 - 12:52:58 PM CowDung wrote:
Yes, that would make a difference. I think if the victim was prepubescent, it indicates more of a pathology.

F*ck this attitude, now and forever.

Adult men going after teen girls IS STILL A PATHOLOGY. It's a *different* pathology to sexually abusing 4-year-olds, but I can't repeat this enough. It is not a "more" or "less" situation. It is just a *difference.*

Again:
If you are an adult man who goes for teen girls, YOU ARE A PREDATOR. IT IS PREDATORY BEHAVIOR. It is exploitation of an extreme power imbalance, and taking advantage of someone who is too young to possibly fully understand or handle the situation you are putting them in.
It is not "more OK" for someone to prey on a teen girl because she's "almost an adult." What you're doing when you say that is contributing to the sexualizing of children.
13 days ago - Friday 11/10/17 - 2:02:49 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 11/10/17 - 1:06:40 PM CowDung wrote:
If his actions put him in legal jeopardy, then as I already stated, he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

You're so inconsistent it's unbelievable. Take legality out of things for a minute. Now ask yourself if what he's accused of doing was wrong. If your answer is yes (which it should be, since you're saying he should be prosecuted if possible), then you cannot turn around and say it's OK for him to be a senator.
Either something is wrong, or it's not. The law (and application of the law) doesn't always match that perfectly, so quit falling back on that as an excuse for five seconds, and evaluate a grown man trying to groom and f*ck a 14-year-old *on its own merits,* irrespective of any potential legal consequences. Either you're OK with that, or you aren't.
13 days ago - Friday 11/10/17 - 2:08:38 PM EST (GMT-5)
I don’t always find my self agreeing with Mitt Romney but he tweeted this:

Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections. I believe Leigh Corfman. Her account is too serious to ignore. Moore is unfit for office and should step aside.
13 days ago - Friday 11/10/17 - 2:16:43 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 11/10/17 - 2:02:49 PM birdsong4j wrote:
You're so inconsistent it's unbelievable. Take legality out of things for a minute. Now ask yourself if what he's accused of doing was wrong. If your answer is yes (which it should be, since you're saying he should be prosecuted if possible), then you cannot turn around and say it's OK for him to be a senator. Either something is wrong, or it's not. The law (and application of the law) doesn't always match that perfectly, so quit falling back on that as an excuse for five seconds, and evaluate a grown man trying to groom and f*ck a 14-year-old *on its own merits,* irrespective of any potential legal consequences. Either you're OK with that, or you aren't.


He's a troll he can hold both positions accoding to what he is rsponding to. It's troll 101.
13 days ago - Friday 11/10/17 - 2:29:33 PM EST (GMT-5)
There are a lot of non trolls who hold the same opinion. I would hope there would be a healthy degree of cognitive dissonance in supporting him, but who knows.
13 days ago - Friday 11/10/17 - 2:49:38 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 11/10/17 - 2:08:38 PM Rik_Khaos wrote:
I don’t always find my self agreeing with Mitt Romney but he [link] this: Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections. I believe Leigh Corfman. Her account is too serious to ignore. Moore is unfit for office and should step aside.

What a shame that this statement is a reason to be proud of someone, when it SHOULD just be the bare minimum standard of human decency.
In current context, though, I'm glad he said it. John McCain made a similar statement yesterday, too.
13 days ago - Friday 11/10/17 - 2:52:22 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Friday 11/10/17 - 1:59:04 PM birdsong4j wrote:
F*ck this attitude, now and forever. Adult men going after teen girls IS STILL A PATHOLOGY. It's a *different* pathology to sexually abusing 4-year-olds, but I can't repeat this enough. It is not a "more" or "less" situation. It is just a *difference.* Again: If you are an adult man who goes for teen girls, YOU ARE A PREDATOR. IT IS PREDATORY BEHAVIOR. It is exploitation of an extreme power imbalance, and taking advantage of someone who is too young to possibly fully understand or handle the situation you are putting them in. It is not "more OK" for someone to prey on a teen girl because she's "almost an adult." What you're doing when you say that is contributing to the sexualizing of children.


Are you a psychiatrist, or do you just play on on YT?
13 days ago - Friday 11/10/17 - 3:02:11 PM EST (GMT-5)
I wasn't aware you had to be a psychologist to know that adult men preying on teen girls is predatory behavior.

But keep on defending this guy trying to f*ck 14-year-olds, because at least they weren't 4. Teen girls have adult-ish bodies, so that makes them fair game for adult men to prey on.
13 days ago - Friday 11/10/17 - 3:22:12 PM EST (GMT-5)
I'm hearing that the statute of limitations is up, so I don't know what charge specifically talking about.

Ok, I looked further. It appears the law to change the statute of limitations in 1985. Prior to that point, it was three years. There was a thing that would let them essentially prosecute back to '82. SO he's legally in the clear by three years.
13 days ago - Friday 11/10/17 - 3:25:09 PM EST (GMT-5)
Which mean there is almost no way that we'll get any more information on this specific incident. If anything comes out 82 or later there could be legal issues.
13 days ago - Friday 11/10/17 - 3:28:17 PM EST (GMT-5)
Considering that the main accuser is already being doxxed by Moore supporters, dragged through the mud all over, being called a liar, being called a secret DNC operative who's being paid to lie, etc., I absolutely wouldn't blame her for not bringing charges even if she could. It's so difficult to prove these things in a way that meets the threshold for criminal convictions, which is just one of the many reasons that refusing to believe women until there's a conviction is a bullsh*t standard that's literally always employed in bad faith (except for the purposed of actually imprisoning someone, of course).

Prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 24 Next (showing 151-175 of 587)



You need to be logged in to post a reply

New to YT? Create a Free Account ~ Have an Account? Log In

Back to Thread List
Top

 
Edit