Running Gator Posted November 15, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.70 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted November 15, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, shiloh357 said: How would they know if Moore is guilty or not without any kind of evidence??? Why is the allegations being made held up as being as good as proof?? There is evidence. I do not know anyone that said they are as "good as proof" but they are what we have and in the court of public opinion everyone uses what we have. You yourself have said that anyone that does not think Moore is innocent is just a tool of the establishment. So you have made up your mind as well. Quote Would YOU want to be held to that standard? We are all held to that standard each and every day. Quote How does "the dems did something worse" serve as a "sure sign" that Moore is guilty? How does that prove guilt? It is not a sure sign he is guilty, it is a sure sign the one saying it thinks the person is guilty. One does not use the "what about _______" defense in regards to someone they feel is innocent. Quote Is that the standard for determining guilt or innocence? And again, are the ones who are setting this precedent willing to live under it when they are on the receiving end of this kind of "justice?" This is the standard that has always existed in the court of public opinion. It is not something new and it is something everyone lives under. Take OJ for example, legally he is not guilty of murder but everyone I know still thinks he did it. Or take the Clintons for another example. Neither have been found guilty in a court of law, yet I am pretty sure you believe both to be guilty of crimes. You keep trying to impose strict legal standards onto the court of public opinion, but it will never work. You posted an article about the WaPo offering to pay someone $1000 dollars for making up stories on Moore. I will assume since you posted the article you thought it was true. Obviously there were not the strict legal standards applied, especially considering the one that tweeted the initial story is a known fraud who cannot even keep the number of purple hearts he was awarded straight. Edited November 15, 2017 by Running Gator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted November 15, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.70 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted November 15, 2017 8 hours ago, SavedByGrace1981 said: He certainly knew about Chappaquiddick when he referred to Kennedy as " . . . my good friend, Ted Kennedy." I don't know about you, but I would have a difficult time considering someone who left a young woman to drown in his car under the circumstances that Kennedy did "a good friend." Even if the drowning DID take place in 1969. You have so-called republicans - McCain included - coming out of the woodwork basically saying Moore isn't fit to serve in the Senate. If Moore is guilty of what is alleged, then yes - he is a creep and a child predator. But the so-called standards of the Senate - given the late Kennedy's "lion of the Senate" status - are laughable to say the least. Talk about "he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone . . . " Blessings, -Ed So, is it your stance that since Ted Kennedy was allowed to serve that a child predator should also be allowed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavedByGrace1981 Posted November 15, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 104 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,923 Content Per Day: 0.61 Reputation: 462 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/02/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/22/1953 Share Posted November 15, 2017 7 hours ago, ayin jade said: Interestingly moore was a democrat when all of this supposedly happened. Wow - I didn't know that. I wonder why he doesn't play his 'Democrat - get out of jail free" card? Blessings, -Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted November 15, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 596 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,043 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,786 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted November 15, 2017 if he is guilty I hope people vote for him anyway and let the Senate refuse to seat him..... then the election will be declared void and they hold another election.... or let the guy that is subbing just stay there till the general election next year. At least I know that the President backed the right person even if the people didn't elect him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted November 15, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.70 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted November 15, 2017 4 hours ago, other one said: if he is guilty I hope people vote for him anyway and let the Senate refuse to seat him..... then the election will be declared void and they hold another election.... or let the guy that is subbing just stay there till the general election next year. At least I know that the President backed the right person even if the people didn't elect him. How does a comment like this tie into this question asked in another thread... Can a fundamentalist Christian serve in office in the US WITHOUT compromising his/her Christian values? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavedByGrace1981 Posted November 23, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 104 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,923 Content Per Day: 0.61 Reputation: 462 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/02/2011 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/22/1953 Share Posted November 23, 2017 On 11/15/2017 at 7:23 AM, Running Gator said: So, is it your stance that since Ted Kennedy was allowed to serve that a child predator should also be allowed? No. If it is proven that Moore is a child predator to the degree that the case against Kennedy was proven (by the facts that a woman drowned in his car and he waited 8 hours to report it) then he shouldn't serve. The voters of Alabama will have their say. After that, if they elect Moore and additional facts do come out supporting the charges, then he should be expelled from the Senate. In the morally relative world of politics, a child predator is worse than a drunk who commits manslaughter. (I know, I know. Kennedy was never CONVICTED - it was Massachusetts, after all. And we can only speculate that he was drunk since in the 8 hours he waited he likely sobered up. So don't bother to point that out.) Blessings, -Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B3L13v3R Posted November 23, 2017 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 76 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,261 Content Per Day: 0.24 Reputation: 1,035 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/12/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted November 23, 2017 What ever happened of innocent until proven guilty? -Roy Moore has said he did not do it. -His wife of 32 years, Kayla Moore, on allegations against her husband Judge Roy Moore: ‘It’s Just Not True–Any of It’ -12 women that have personally known Roy Moore anywhere from 10 to 50 years have nothing but praise for the man, and none of them EVER saw any inappropriate actions. -Delbra Adams, Roy Moore’s former longtime secretary and judicial assistant, says that in 13 years of working for the senatorial candidate she never saw or experienced any inappropriate conduct toward women. -Former Mall Manager – "Roy Moore Was Not Banned From Gadsden Mall Over Complaints" on "pestering teenage girls." As The New Yorker and Mediaite had previously and slanderously stated. -A step son born and raised in Gadsden said he backs Roy Moore, and apologizes for his step mothers accusations towards Roy Moor and his family, stating "she always like to live high on the hog" and "is wrong as... " and had pretty much guessed "somebody has paid her to get it done." -Ex-Boyfriend (and now Pastor) of another of Roy Moore's Accusers: "I Don’t Believe Her" -Eight days now, and no yearbook handed over to verify that Roy Moore's signature was indeed authentic. -President Trump has said "Roy Moore denies it, that’s all I can say," Trump said Tuesday. In fact, he repeated 10 times in a 5-minute session outside the White House that the GOP candidate has denied any wrongdoing... Trump didn’t explicitly say he was endorsing Moore, but he said with emphasis, "We don’t need a liberal person in there. ... We don’t need somebody who’s soft on crime like Jones." He also noted that the allegations came from behavior alleged to have happened decades ago. "Forty years is a long time," Trump said, questioning why it took so long for Moore’s accusers to come forward. I've been watching this for a while and praying for the man and his family. Overall, at least to this man, this seems like a collusion of lies on the part of Roy Moore's 9 accusers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted November 23, 2017 Share Posted November 23, 2017 (edited) On 11/15/2017 at 6:21 AM, Running Gator said: There is evidence. No, there is not. There is not one shred of evidence. Quote I do not know anyone that said they are as "good as proof" but they are what we have and in the court of public opinion everyone uses what we have. You yourself have said that anyone that does not think Moore is innocent is just a tool of the establishment. So you have made up your mind as well. Based on the timing of these accusations, based on the absence of any evidence, based on the lack of credibility of at least two of the accusers, based on the the fact that the Democrats used this tactic before to trot out false accusers, yes I believe he is innocent and I am operating off of the presumption of innocence Quote We are all held to that standard each and every day. No, we are not. Quote It is not a sure sign he is guilty, it is a sure sign the one saying it thinks the person is guilty. One does not use the "what about _______" defense in regards to someone they feel is innocent. No, it is not. It is simply pointing to the inconsistency of those who have presumed Moore guilty for no more reason than the fact that he was accused. Quote This is the standard that has always existed in the court of public opinion. It is not something new and it is something everyone lives under. The problem is that the court of "public opinion" is being used to destroy people's lives. We are deciding legal consequences based on public opinion. If public opinion were simply relegated to the opinion arena, that would be one thing. But this has entered the realm of slander and defamation and that is a legal issue and that can be prosecuted. Quote Take OJ for example, legally he is not guilty of murder but everyone I know still thinks he did it. Or take the Clintons for another example. Neither have been found guilty in a court of law, yet I am pretty sure you believe both to be guilty of crimes. The difference in the case of OJ and Clinton is that there IS evidence and tons of it. I do believe he is guilty. Most people do, since they got to see the court proceedings and the evidence on live TV. They got to see a case being made. With the Clintons, the FBI has pretty much said that she did what she is accused of, but saw no reason to prosecute her even though she had committed over 100 felonies. So you really cannot compare this with Moore because there is not one shred of evidence that he committed any crime. Quote You keep trying to impose strict legal standards onto the court of public opinion, but it will never work. You posted an article about the WaPo offering to pay someone $1000 dollars for making up stories on Moore. I will assume since you posted the article you thought it was true. Obviously there were not the strict legal standards applied, especially considering the one that tweeted the initial story is a known fraud who cannot even keep the number of purple hearts he was awarded straight. The problem is that people want legal consequences enacted against Moore, but they don't want to be held to legal standards to justify those consequences. They want to destroy Moore's reputation, they want to defame His character and subject him to the consequences of a completely destroyed reputation, but they don't want to have to justify their claims. They essentially want this to be a one-way street where they can accuse and say whatever they want, but the accused has no legal recourse to fight back. Edited November 23, 2017 by shiloh357 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts