My meager "defense" of Roy Moore.....

[JakeStarkey]

The various criminal punishments then are certainly informative for the importance of the issues now, OKTexas.

Honest, moral Americans, theists and atheists, will hold Moore to the standard of being a good, faithful Senator committed to the welfare of all Americans.

Tell him to get his hand out of the cookie jar and apologize to his victims and all of America.

 

[ClosedCaption]

This sounds like a political hit job only for 2 reasons:

1. He's a politician
2. 30 year olds trying to **** a 14 year old is bad.

So he did a bad thing and the bad thing isn' liked by people who vote. Now:

Explain how Moore said that he didn't typically date teens. And then explain why Moore doesn't remember it correctly. And explain how his coworkers all aren't remembering it correct either.

Another poster said the Post reporter knew of the allegations in the spring,


.

Explain how you are finding more questionable actions with the person who knew about it than the person who did it?

What does that gibberish have to do with the very limited portion of my post you quoted. BTW you know manipulating a post within the quote box and altering the context if a violation of the posting rules. Don't chop up my posts and expect me to respond to it.


.

Ok, here is your whole quote now
Explain how you are finding more questionable actions with the person who knew about it than the person who did it?

When you cant then I know youre faking and I dont have to continue responding to you

So you go from breaking the rules to lying, this is the whole quote I was referring to:

Another poster said the Post reporter knew of the allegations in the spring, why did he not reveal it during the primaries instead of waiting till Moore couldn't be replaced on the general election ballot? Can you say it was a purely political decision on the part of a obviously biased press? BTW there seems to be some holes developing in some of the details of the article and what the woman said. At this point I consider it an obsolete she said, he said and truth doesn't really matter, it just all political maneuvering.

And you still have yet to explain how the gibberish you posted relates to what I said in the above post.


.

This isnt about quote rules is it? Its just you're embarrassed to explain how you're super upset at everyone around the molestation except the molester and this is you citing rules and other nonsense as a lame ass cover.

Poor baby.

Keep on excusing child touching. It looks good on you

 

[ClosedCaption]

You may not like it, but it wasn't illegal.


.

Think again. The bolded portion is exactly what the victim described.

"The legal age of consent in Alabama, then and now, is 16. Under Alabama law in 1979, and today, a person who is at least 19 years old who has sexual contact with someone between 12 and 16 years old has committed sexual abuse in the second degree. Sexual contact is defined as touching of sexual or intimate parts. The crime is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.

The law then and now also includes a section on enticing a child younger than 16 to enter a home with the purpose of proposing sexual intercourse or fondling of sexual and genital parts. That is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison."

Roy Moore accused of sexual encounter with teen in 1979

OK, but as I said earlier, at this point the law is irrelevant. All we have now is a 40 year old claim made by a woman known for making multiple false allegations and very convenient political timing. You don't find that somewhat suspicious?


.

The law is not irrelevant. Simply because he cannot be prosecuted doesn't absolve him of those actions.

I don't find the timing suspicious at all. The Post has been working on this story since the spring.

Where did I say anyone would be absolved for their actions IF the allegations were true. There's just nothing legally that can be done, so legal options available then are irrelevant now.


.

Then what's your point?

This started with you saying no crime was committed.

They all do this where they try to defend it without defending it.

Them: Whats wrong with kicking a dog?
Us: Why are you for animal abuse
Them: Did I ever use the word abuse
Us: But you said kicking
Them: Ever seen Cujo? Would you kick that dog?

Basically I ask them flat out what they are defending. If they deflect that means they are too embarrassed to even flat out defend then very things they are trying to deflect from.

 

[bendog]

There are 30 people who were sourced vs Moore who went on Hannity and said he did "typically date girls in their teens".

I'd go with 30 people with no axe to grind and didn't seek the paper out AND Moore who didn't deny "dating" teens while in his ******* 30's

People relying on 30-40 year memories and at least one a commiecrat activist working for Moore's opponent. The real question is why was this story held by the Post till he couldn't be replaced on the ballot? That doesn't sound like a political hit job to you?
.

Explain how Moore said that he didn't typically date teens. And then explain why Moore doesn't remember it correctly.

Deflection noted, you want to address what I actually said and answer my questions?


.

This sounds like a political hit job only for 2 reasons:

1. He's a politician
2. 30 year olds trying to **** a 14 year old is bad.

So he did a bad thing and the bad thing isn' liked by people who vote. Now:

Explain how Moore said that he didn't typically date teens. And then explain why Moore doesn't remember it correctly. And explain how his coworkers all aren't remembering it correct either.

Another poster said the Post reporter knew of the allegations in the spring, why did he not reveal it during the primaries instead of waiting till Moore couldn't be replaced on the general election ballot? Can you say it was a purely political decision on the part of a obviously biased press? BTW there seems to be some holes developing in some of the details of the article and what the woman said. At this point I consider it an obsolete she said, he said and truth doesn't really matter, it just all political maneuvering.


.

Of course it doesn't matter than he prayed (-: on teenagers. Even if the WP could have published earlier, he admits he did it. But you're cool with that. And you suck

 

[OKTexas]

You may not like it, but it wasn't illegal.


.

Think again. The bolded portion is exactly what the victim described.

"The legal age of consent in Alabama, then and now, is 16. Under Alabama law in 1979, and today, a person who is at least 19 years old who has sexual contact with someone between 12 and 16 years old has committed sexual abuse in the second degree. Sexual contact is defined as touching of sexual or intimate parts. The crime is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.

The law then and now also includes a section on enticing a child younger than 16 to enter a home with the purpose of proposing sexual intercourse or fondling of sexual and genital parts. That is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison."

Roy Moore accused of sexual encounter with teen in 1979

OK, but as I said earlier, at this point the law is irrelevant. All we have now is a 40 year old claim made by a woman known for making multiple false allegations and very convenient political timing. You don't find that somewhat suspicious?


.

The law is not irrelevant. Simply because he cannot be prosecuted doesn't absolve him of those actions.

I don't find the timing suspicious at all. The Post has been working on this story since the spring.

Where did I say anyone would be absolved for their actions IF the allegations were true. There's just nothing legally that can be done, so legal options available then are irrelevant now.


.

Then what's your point?

This started with you saying no crime was committed.

If you were paying attention I only said that in relation to 3, I restated that point in post #206, do try to keep up.


.

 

[OKTexas]

The various criminal punishments then are certainly informative for the importance of the issues now, OKTexas.

Honest, moral Americans, theists and atheists, will hold Moore to the standard of being a good, faithful Senator committed to the welfare of all Americans.

Tell him to get his hand out of the cookie jar and apologize to his victims and all of America.

I can think of several senators that couldn't pass that test. Even more in the house.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Another poster said the Post reporter knew of the allegations in the spring,


.

Explain how you are finding more questionable actions with the person who knew about it than the person who did it?

What does that gibberish have to do with the very limited portion of my post you quoted. BTW you know manipulating a post within the quote box and altering the context if a violation of the posting rules. Don't chop up my posts and expect me to respond to it.


.

Ok, here is your whole quote now
Explain how you are finding more questionable actions with the person who knew about it than the person who did it?

When you cant then I know youre faking and I dont have to continue responding to you

So you go from breaking the rules to lying, this is the whole quote I was referring to:

Another poster said the Post reporter knew of the allegations in the spring, why did he not reveal it during the primaries instead of waiting till Moore couldn't be replaced on the general election ballot? Can you say it was a purely political decision on the part of a obviously biased press? BTW there seems to be some holes developing in some of the details of the article and what the woman said. At this point I consider it an obsolete she said, he said and truth doesn't really matter, it just all political maneuvering.

And you still have yet to explain how the gibberish you posted relates to what I said in the above post.


.

This isnt about quote rules is it? Its just you're embarrassed to explain how you're super upset at everyone around the molestation except the molester and this is you citing rules and other nonsense as a lame ass cover.

Poor baby.

Keep on excusing child touching. It looks good on you

Damn a half way intelligible post, it only took you three times to get there and you're still deflecting form the post you originally quoted. Am I skeptical about the 40 year old stories, yep. Am I skeptical about the timing and the way they were reported and the veracity of the primary accuser, yeah I am. I think the whole damn thing stinks to high heaven. But I haven't made any excuses if the claim of illegal behavior is true, but I see no way at this point to actually prove anything. So innocent until proven guilty, still should rule the day. Thats a very American standard you seem to be unfamiliar with.


.

 

[OKTexas]

People relying on 30-40 year memories and at least one a commiecrat activist working for Moore's opponent. The real question is why was this story held by the Post till he couldn't be replaced on the ballot? That doesn't sound like a political hit job to you?
.

Explain how Moore said that he didn't typically date teens. And then explain why Moore doesn't remember it correctly.

Deflection noted, you want to address what I actually said and answer my questions?


.

This sounds like a political hit job only for 2 reasons:

1. He's a politician
2. 30 year olds trying to **** a 14 year old is bad.

So he did a bad thing and the bad thing isn' liked by people who vote. Now:

Explain how Moore said that he didn't typically date teens. And then explain why Moore doesn't remember it correctly. And explain how his coworkers all aren't remembering it correct either.

Another poster said the Post reporter knew of the allegations in the spring, why did he not reveal it during the primaries instead of waiting till Moore couldn't be replaced on the general election ballot? Can you say it was a purely political decision on the part of a obviously biased press? BTW there seems to be some holes developing in some of the details of the article and what the woman said. At this point I consider it an obsolete she said, he said and truth doesn't really matter, it just all political maneuvering.


.

Of course it doesn't matter than he prayed (-: on teenagers. Even if the WP could have published earlier, he admits he did it. But you're cool with that. And you suck

Funny how you regressives chose your words to make things sound much worse than they really are. There is only one indication that he might have prayed on anyone, and her 3 false allegations make her story suspect at least 38 years later.

The others we consensual and legal, from what I've read they enjoyed their time with him and called it off when they got board, that hardly meets your language, that he prayed on them.

Other Prosecutors were evidently aware of his activities and wouldn't they have been duty bound to stop him if what he was doing reached the level of criminality?

If he did molest the 14 year old he should have his balls cut off, but at this point I'm not convinced he did. You're fully entitled to say I've reached the wrong conclusion in your opinion, but that's all you've got, just like me and everyone else, there is no way to prove anything conclusively.


.

 

[Syriusly]

Only a perv in his thirties dates girls who are 14, 16, and 17.

You may not like it, but it wasn't illegal.


.

Think again. The bolded portion is exactly what the victim described.

"The legal age of consent in Alabama, then and now, is 16. Under Alabama law in 1979, and today, a person who is at least 19 years old who has sexual contact with someone between 12 and 16 years old has committed sexual abuse in the second degree. Sexual contact is defined as touching of sexual or intimate parts. The crime is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.

The law then and now also includes a section on enticing a child younger than 16 to enter a home with the purpose of proposing sexual intercourse or fondling of sexual and genital parts. That is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison."

Roy Moore accused of sexual encounter with teen in 1979

OK, but as I said earlier, at this point the law is irrelevant. All we have now is a 40 year old claim made by a woman known for making multiple false allegations and very convenient political timing. You don't find that somewhat suspicious?


.

OK- but as you said earlier- you claimed it wasn't illegal- let me quote you again

You may not like it, but it wasn't illegal.

What we have is a claim by a woman of something that happened 40 years ago- that she didn't volunteer and didn't make public until a reporter tracked down rumors of Moore dating teens- and that she confided in her teenage friend at the time- and her mother 10 years after the fact- and whose mother has confirmed that Moore met them exactly as she confirmed.

So why do you think that this woman- a Republican who voted for Trump, her childhood friend- and her mother are all lying?

Do I find the timing suspicious? In the year where Harvey Weinstein has fallen due to women feeling empowered to share their stories of his sexual abuse? A year when women are feeling empowered to tell about the men who have sexually abused them?

No I don't particularly.

 

[Syriusly]

There are 30 people who were sourced vs Moore who went on Hannity and said he did "typically date girls in their teens".

I'd go with 30 people with no axe to grind and didn't seek the paper out AND Moore who didn't deny "dating" teens while in his ******* 30's

People relying on 30-40 year memories and at least one a commiecrat activist working for Moore's opponent. The real question is why was this story held by the Post till he couldn't be replaced on the ballot? That doesn't sound like a political hit job to you?
.

Explain how Moore said that he didn't typically date teens. And then explain why Moore doesn't remember it correctly.

Deflection noted, you want to address what I actually said and answer my questions?


.

This sounds like a political hit job only for 2 reasons:

1. He's a politician
2. 30 year olds trying to **** a 14 year old is bad.

So he did a bad thing and the bad thing isn' liked by people who vote. Now:

Explain how Moore said that he didn't typically date teens. And then explain why Moore doesn't remember it correctly. And explain how his coworkers all aren't remembering it correct either.

Another poster said the Post reporter knew of the allegations in the spring, why did he not reveal it during the primaries instead of waiting till Moore couldn't be replaced on the general election ballot?

.

Perhaps if you actually read the Post article. rather than rely upon what posters on USMB told you- you would know?

Like maybe you would know the gender of the reporter who wrote the story.

 

[Syriusly]

Explain how Moore said that he didn't typically date teens. And then explain why Moore doesn't remember it correctly.

Deflection noted, you want to address what I actually said and answer my questions?


.

This sounds like a political hit job only for 2 reasons:

1. He's a politician
2. 30 year olds trying to **** a 14 year old is bad.

So he did a bad thing and the bad thing isn' liked by people who vote. Now:

Explain how Moore said that he didn't typically date teens. And then explain why Moore doesn't remember it correctly. And explain how his coworkers all aren't remembering it correct either.

Another poster said the Post reporter knew of the allegations in the spring, why did he not reveal it during the primaries instead of waiting till Moore couldn't be replaced on the general election ballot? Can you say it was a purely political decision on the part of a obviously biased press? BTW there seems to be some holes developing in some of the details of the article and what the woman said. At this point I consider it an obsolete she said, he said and truth doesn't really matter, it just all political maneuvering.


.

Of course it doesn't matter than he prayed (-: on teenagers. Even if the WP could have published earlier, he admits he did it. But you're cool with that. And you suck

Funny how you regressives chose your words to make things sound much worse than they really are. There is only one indication that he might have prayed on anyone, and her 3 false allegations make her story suspect at least 38 years later.

.

Funny how you contards dance around the very words you actually said.

Here is what you said:
You may not like it, but it wasn't illegal.

Yes- if true- it was illegal.

There is one woman who has made the allegation- and her story is backed up by both her mother, and her teenage friend. And backed up by a coworker that said that Moore was known for dating teenagers.

Is that solid proof? Of course not- but it is enough to take seriously- instead of attacking the accuser as you are doing- and conveniently ignoring the others who support her claim.

 

[OKTexas]

Only a perv in his thirties dates girls who are 14, 16, and 17.

You may not like it, but it wasn't illegal.


.

Think again. The bolded portion is exactly what the victim described.

"The legal age of consent in Alabama, then and now, is 16. Under Alabama law in 1979, and today, a person who is at least 19 years old who has sexual contact with someone between 12 and 16 years old has committed sexual abuse in the second degree. Sexual contact is defined as touching of sexual or intimate parts. The crime is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.

The law then and now also includes a section on enticing a child younger than 16 to enter a home with the purpose of proposing sexual intercourse or fondling of sexual and genital parts. That is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison."

Roy Moore accused of sexual encounter with teen in 1979

OK, but as I said earlier, at this point the law is irrelevant. All we have now is a 40 year old claim made by a woman known for making multiple false allegations and very convenient political timing. You don't find that somewhat suspicious?


.

OK- but as you said earlier- you claimed it wasn't illegal- let me quote you again

You may not like it, but it wasn't illegal.

What we have is a claim by a woman of something that happened 40 years ago- that she didn't volunteer and didn't make public until a reporter tracked down rumors of Moore dating teens- and that she confided in her teenage friend at the time- and her mother 10 years after the fact- and whose mother has confirmed that Moore met them exactly as she confirmed.

So why do you think that this woman- a Republican who voted for Trump, her childhood friend- and her mother are all lying?

Do I find the timing suspicious? In the year where Harvey Weinstein has fallen due to women feeling empowered to share their stories of his sexual abuse? A year when women are feeling empowered to tell about the men who have sexually abused them?

No I don't particularly.

See post #248, I'm not going to keep answer the same questions over and over.


.

 

[emilynghiem]

Think again. The bolded portion is exactly what the victim described.

"The legal age of consent in Alabama, then and now, is 16. Under Alabama law in 1979, and today, a person who is at least 19 years old who has sexual contact with someone between 12 and 16 years old has committed sexual abuse in the second degree. Sexual contact is defined as touching of sexual or intimate parts. The crime is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.

The law then and now also includes a section on enticing a child younger than 16 to enter a home with the purpose of proposing sexual intercourse or fondling of sexual and genital parts. That is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison."

Roy Moore accused of sexual encounter with teen in 1979

OK, but as I said earlier, at this point the law is irrelevant. All we have now is a 40 year old claim made by a woman known for making multiple false allegations and very convenient political timing. You don't find that somewhat suspicious?


.

The law is not irrelevant. Simply because he cannot be prosecuted doesn't absolve him of those actions.

I don't find the timing suspicious at all. The Post has been working on this story since the spring.

Where did I say anyone would be absolved for their actions IF the allegations were true. There's just nothing legally that can be done, so legal options available then are irrelevant now.


.

Then what's your point?

This started with you saying no crime was committed.

They all do this where they try to defend it without defending it.

Them: Whats wrong with kicking a dog?
Us: Why are you for animal abuse
Them: Did I ever use the word abuse
Us: But you said kicking
Them: Ever seen Cujo? Would you kick that dog?

Basically I ask them flat out what they are defending. If they deflect that means they are too embarrassed to even flat out defend then very things they are trying to deflect from.

Dear ClosedCaption
What if they are trying to defend the man but denounce his past actions that are wrongful.
What's wrong with doing both?
LouisCK managed to defend his sincerity and responsibility as a person of conscience while denouncing his past actions as abusing power and wrongful and damaging .
Shouldn't more people be encouraged to take that approach? instead of totalling the whole car over a few bad parts that need fixing first. Why do we assume that problems can't be fixed? And just because the car can be saved, does that mean ignoring how serious or dangerous the problems are? No, in fact the only way to ensure competence and safety is to fully examine and resolve all the issues. Shouldn't we require this care in all cases to protect people from further risk of harm?

Why frame it as either or - either throw away the future or ignore the past?
Why not fix all the above!

 

[MadChemist]

Explain how Moore said that he didn't typically date teens. And then explain why Moore doesn't remember it correctly.

Deflection noted, you want to address what I actually said and answer my questions?


.

This sounds like a political hit job only for 2 reasons:

1. He's a politician
2. 30 year olds trying to **** a 14 year old is bad.

So he did a bad thing and the bad thing isn' liked by people who vote. Now:

Explain how Moore said that he didn't typically date teens. And then explain why Moore doesn't remember it correctly. And explain how his coworkers all aren't remembering it correct either.

Another poster said the Post reporter knew of the allegations in the spring, why did he not reveal it during the primaries instead of waiting till Moore couldn't be replaced on the general election ballot? Can you say it was a purely political decision on the part of a obviously biased press? BTW there seems to be some holes developing in some of the details of the article and what the woman said. At this point I consider it an obsolete she said, he said and truth doesn't really matter, it just all political maneuvering.


.

You'll notice the context of the OP has been completely forgotten here.

It's so typical of wingers on both sides to say the same thing over and over and over and over and over again.

Really, the last sentence of my post is completely within the context of the OP.


.

My apologies.

I was making a more general statement. I should not have quoted your post.

 

[MadChemist]

Jones is +4 in the latest poll
Moore was+11 three weeks ago

Looks like the voters are starting to make choices

RealClearPolitics - Election 2017 - Alabama Senate Special Election - Moore vs. Jones

It's never quite clear what you hope to accomplish with you silly posts.

I went to your link and just below it was the presidential electoral map from 2016. I thought....are we still discussing polls after that ?

Unable to read a link?

It shows polling results from the Alabama election

Unable to read at all ?

Your polls were right above the election results of 2016 where polls said they'd be a lot different.

Or have you forgotten that already ?

 

[MadChemist]

I don't recall saying I thought anything should be going on.

I simply asked what was happening.

The disappeared as fast as they appeared.

Don't you get tired of making stuff up to argue against ?

Except they didn't "disappear". I just posted an article showing you they are still out there, still doing their thing in court.

Don't you ever get tired of being stupid?

Actually, they did disappear. Nobody has heard much (if anything) about them.

I was just pointing that out.

Are all 90,000 of your posts that combative ?

Can you please show me where you've changed anyone's mind with your verbal virtuosity.

i don't like Trump and I don't like how America has forgotten what a miserable person he was (and probably is).

I agreed with the OP in that what happened to Trump and Moore can happen to anyone (not sure I would call it swiftboating) and it is a terrible thing to see in the political election process.

 

[OKTexas]

Deflection noted, you want to address what I actually said and answer my questions?


.

This sounds like a political hit job only for 2 reasons:

1. He's a politician
2. 30 year olds trying to **** a 14 year old is bad.

So he did a bad thing and the bad thing isn' liked by people who vote. Now:

Explain how Moore said that he didn't typically date teens. And then explain why Moore doesn't remember it correctly. And explain how his coworkers all aren't remembering it correct either.

Another poster said the Post reporter knew of the allegations in the spring, why did he not reveal it during the primaries instead of waiting till Moore couldn't be replaced on the general election ballot? Can you say it was a purely political decision on the part of a obviously biased press? BTW there seems to be some holes developing in some of the details of the article and what the woman said. At this point I consider it an obsolete she said, he said and truth doesn't really matter, it just all political maneuvering.


.

You'll notice the context of the OP has been completely forgotten here.

It's so typical of wingers on both sides to say the same thing over and over and over and over and over again.

Really, the last sentence of my post is completely within the context of the OP.


.

My apologies.

I was making a more general statement. I should not have quoted your post.

Thanks for being a big enough person to admit it, you're a rare breed around here.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Deflection noted, you want to address what I actually said and answer my questions?


.

This sounds like a political hit job only for 2 reasons:

1. He's a politician
2. 30 year olds trying to **** a 14 year old is bad.

So he did a bad thing and the bad thing isn' liked by people who vote. Now:

Explain how Moore said that he didn't typically date teens. And then explain why Moore doesn't remember it correctly. And explain how his coworkers all aren't remembering it correct either.

Another poster said the Post reporter knew of the allegations in the spring, why did he not reveal it during the primaries instead of waiting till Moore couldn't be replaced on the general election ballot? Can you say it was a purely political decision on the part of a obviously biased press? BTW there seems to be some holes developing in some of the details of the article and what the woman said. At this point I consider it an obsolete she said, he said and truth doesn't really matter, it just all political maneuvering.


.

Of course it doesn't matter than he prayed (-: on teenagers. Even if the WP could have published earlier, he admits he did it. But you're cool with that. And you suck

Funny how you regressives chose your words to make things sound much worse than they really are. There is only one indication that he might have prayed on anyone, and her 3 false allegations make her story suspect at least 38 years later.

.

Funny how you contards dance around the very words you actually said.

Here is what you said:
You may not like it, but it wasn't illegal.

Yes- if true- it was illegal.

There is one woman who has made the allegation- and her story is backed up by both her mother, and her teenage friend. And backed up by a coworker that said that Moore was known for dating teenagers.

Is that solid proof? Of course not- but it is enough to take seriously- instead of attacking the accuser as you are doing- and conveniently ignoring the others who support her claim.

No one forced her to make 3 false allegations and destroy her own credibility. And except for the post I referred you to above, that's all I've got to say about it.


.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Think again. The bolded portion is exactly what the victim described.

"The legal age of consent in Alabama, then and now, is 16. Under Alabama law in 1979, and today, a person who is at least 19 years old who has sexual contact with someone between 12 and 16 years old has committed sexual abuse in the second degree. Sexual contact is defined as touching of sexual or intimate parts. The crime is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.

The law then and now also includes a section on enticing a child younger than 16 to enter a home with the purpose of proposing sexual intercourse or fondling of sexual and genital parts. That is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison."

Roy Moore accused of sexual encounter with teen in 1979

OK, but as I said earlier, at this point the law is irrelevant. All we have now is a 40 year old claim made by a woman known for making multiple false allegations and very convenient political timing. You don't find that somewhat suspicious?


.

The law is not irrelevant. Simply because he cannot be prosecuted doesn't absolve him of those actions.

I don't find the timing suspicious at all. The Post has been working on this story since the spring.

Where did I say anyone would be absolved for their actions IF the allegations were true. There's just nothing legally that can be done, so legal options available then are irrelevant now.


.

Then what's your point?

This started with you saying no crime was committed.

If you were paying attention I only said that in relation to 3, I restated that point in post #206, do try to keep up.


.

You made the statement, dope.
If you were paying attention, you would notice that this started with post 31.

Only a perv in his thirties dates girls who are 14, 16, and 17.

You may not like it, but it wasn't illegal.


.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The various criminal punishments then are certainly informative for the importance of the issues now, OKTexas.

Honest, moral Americans, theists and atheists, will hold Moore to the standard of being a good, faithful Senator committed to the welfare of all Americans.

Tell him to get his hand out of the cookie jar and apologize to his victims and all of America.

I can think of several senators that couldn't pass that test. Even more in the house. .

Your deflection is useless and immoral, and the voters of Alabama can make an informed, virtuous selection.