Now please show me where Moore has been found guilty of doing such a thing. Thanks.
I am not sure what this post responds to. This is indirect evidence but with the strange way Moore has defended himself against these accusations, it makes you wonder. Here is an article regarding a woman who contacted the Washington Post with false allegations that Moore had been inappropriate with her. A woman approached The Post with dramatic — and false — tale about Roy Moore. She appears to be part of undercover sting operation.. Who is behind this? Why do they need to attack the messenger instead of trying to factually disprove what was said?To some, apparently it does.
What are you talking about? He is being investigated by the Senate and will probably be kicked out. If this guy were elected already it would be handled differently. I love how you just did that. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with (effluvia of male cattle).Like accusations, right? But if we just had something like, oh, photographic proof.
Oh, wait. Never mind. This guy's not a republican. Nothing to see here.
I acknowledge that Franken has most likely been foolishly inappropriate. If he were running for office (and I lived in Minnesota) I would vote against him or maybe not vote. I don't understand what you think the Bg Reveal is.Pointed out the hypocrisy of demanding Moore not seek the office of Senator because of accusations while not demanding that Franken vacate the office of Senator because of proof? You're welcome.
Photographic proof of fondling a woman against her will = "has most likely been foolishly inappropriate." Okie dokie then.I acknowledge that Franken has most likely been foolishly inappropriate.
Anyway if there were this much evidence that he had committed another serious crime, I can't imagine people would be so laissez-faire. There is much to wonder about, and the lack of interest by the Republican voters shows me a lot about that party.
I didn't say you were. But your distaste for the Republicans is clear. Moore being accused of having sex (accusation not fact) is a reason for you not to want to vote republican. However the Democrat support (fact not accusation) for murdering the unborn doesn't seem to make you not want to support them. You support them anyway. That is ideology and not moral superiority.I actually didn't claim moral superiority. I just said I didn't think not having sex (how do you know it was consensual? I haven't actually seen anything that mentions her possible consent although her consent doesn't matter. She is too young) with a 14 year old is incompatible with not having an abortion, and the poster I was responding was very graphic and incorrect in his post to me. He suggested I was in favor of having seagulls eat aborted fetuses. Human parts would be a biohazard and seagulls would never be allowed to eat it. I found it offensive that it was implied to be in favor of seagulls eating aborted fetuses and embryos. I do not understand the link between abortion and having sex with children or trying to rape very young women, but I am not in favor of abortion. Now could we please keep abortion out of this thread? I find it irrelevant.
That may be true legally, but she still my have consented. That in no way means it's ok. I certainly don't support it.No 32 year old man can have consensual sex with a 14 year old girl in Alabama according to the law. It's a crime. No consent can be given.
I am not sure what this post responds to. This is indirect evidence but with the strange way Moore has defended himself against these accusations, it makes you wonder. Here is an article regarding a woman who contacted the Washington Post with false allegations that Moore had been inappropriate with her. A woman approached The Post with dramatic — and false — tale about Roy Moore. She appears to be part of undercover sting operation.. Who is behind this? Why do they need to attack the messenger instead of trying to factually disprove what was said?
Anyway if there were this much evidence that he had committed another serious crime, I can't imagine people would be so laissez-faire. There is much to wonder about, and the lack of interest by the Republican voters shows me a lot about that party.
Alabama law will not allow him to be tried for the crime - the statute of limitations is past.That may be true legally, but she still my have consented. That in no way means it's ok. I certainly don't support it.
Moore however has been accused of it. He has not been found guilty. To call him a rapist or a molester is judging him on something he has not been found guilty of yet.
Let's not forget that the (alleged) serial rapist Bill Clinton is still a rock star in the Democratic Party. Anyone who supports him doesn't have the moral authority to comment on a man of Roy Moore's character. Roy Moore is accused of touching a girl through her underwear. Bill Clinton (allegedly) violently raped Anita Broderick and sexually assaulted a string of others. The corrupt media covered for him for years.However the Democrat support (fact not accusation) for murdering the unborn doesn't seem to make you not want to support them. You support them anyway. That is ideology and not moral superiority.
Alabama law will not allow him to be tried for the crime - the statute of limitations is past.
Not every crime falls under a statute of limitations and not every nation applies limitations to child molestation.There's a reason why statute of limitations exists...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?