Roy Moore says he'll sue WaPo

[martybegan]

I guess you are shoving Clinton down the memory hole now that their political worth is near zero.

I guess you are unable to show the class where any name resembling "Clinton" shows up in Roy Moore's name. Or in the name of the publication "Washington Post".

Wassamatta? Having trouble following the topic?

Pogo's Law strikes again.

And the banal hypocrisy of the left strikes the same place as usual.

I didn't know you were on "the left" but it's got less to do with "hypocrisy" than with a desperate deflection engaged because you can't handle the topic at hand.

Also known as the Tu Quoque Fallacy, or its trendy new name, "Whataboutism".

Tu Quoque only works if you are trying to absolve two equal acts, I'm not absolving Weinstein, and if actual evidence comes out against Moore doing something illegal, I won't absolve him either.

Weinstein's first name is "Clinton" is it? I can't even keep up.

Are we finding it a challenge to distinguish between the concept "Roy Moore" and the concept "everybody else in the world"?

Clinton, Weinstein, Spacey, whatever.

Your people were complicit in a decades long coverup of bad behavior, but you were OK with it because the $$ kept flowing to the "right" people.

 

[martybegan]

Dodge, duck dip, dive and dodge.

That's exactly what "whataboutism" is...so every time you invoke anyone else who may have committed sexual assault, you are exercising "whataboutism" in order to avoid having a discussion about the specific topic at hand. That is a deliberate action you are taking in order to deflect the conversation and elicit an emotional response. But it's not going to work with me. So stop.

When has he been asked to do so? And again, hollywood types date people that young all the time, and yet nothing is said about it.

See above.

Now that the accusations are out in the open, why aren't more recent events, if the exist, coming out, ones that would be far easier to verify than 40 year old ones....

Maybe there will be..you don't know. So please, for the second time I am asking what amount of time is sufficient for you in order to believe the accusations? 1 year? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? 29 years? You're saying there is some magic number where a sufficient amount of time has passed in order for you to believe the accusations. So I'm asking you, what is that amount of time? What's the specific cutoff? You're saying "recent" but you don't further explain what "recent" means. I personally think you did that to set yourself up in parameters you can wiggle around as it suits your argument. Very dishonest. Very trollish.

NowBut you are getting the political result you want, so asking questions is necessary, you cheap, dime store hack.

The political result I want is for all Conservatives to be removed from power because all Conservatives are just like Roy Moore...only some of them are less overt about their predatory and manipulative habits. But when it comes down to it, y'all believe the same crazy shit; that it's OK for a 32 year old man to pursue high school girls. Every Conservative thinks that's OK and they use their Bible to justify it.

Stop making up words, it doesn't help

Derp

Right now none of these accusations would result in a conviction in a court even without a Statue of limitations.

What a fascist fuck you are.

I love the Statue of Limitations. I understand it has a plaque reading "Give me your tired, your poor, your 14-year-old girls reduced to their underwear yearning to break free...."

And right now if it didn't exist you still probably wouldn't get a conviction of him.

But since this just a political exercise for people like you, you don't care because the damage you seek has been done.

 

[martybegan]

Again putting the cart before the horse. And he has denied any illegal acts.

But he hasn't denied the pervy acts. He hasn't denied he pursued these girls. He hasn't denied he dated these girls. He hasn't denied he "hugged and kissed" these girls. Of course he's going to deny abusing them, but the problem is that he's already stepped in it. He flat out denied any contact to start, then walked that back on Hannity by saying he did have contact...so what we have here is nearly the same thing we have when it comes to Trump and Russia...the blanket denials are so easily debunked it forces the question why deny something that is so obviously true? And if they're lying about that, wouldn't it also stand to reason they're lying about other things too?

No, it makes you a hack because you only care about that D+1.

And you only care about preserving that seat for the R's so they can pass all the shitty things they want to pass, including this joke of "tax reform". You're literally compromising your principles just to play party-before-country. That's the only reason you're defending Moore. You say you oppose his politics, but refuse to say why. What is it about his politics you don't like that is enough for you to overcome to defend him? It makes no sense.

Would you trade a confession by Moore for the right of the Governor to appoint a Republican to serve out the rest of the term?

Well, they can't do that, for one, because the election is already happening and their state constitution doesn't allow it. Canceling the election because your guy turned out to be a perv isn't something that Alabama can even do. Plus, it would look really bad for Conservatives to cancel an election because they guy they nominated turned out to be a pervy pedo-bear.

He hasn't denied it about the ones that were of legal age.

I'm not the one acting all holier than though when his own side is more depraved by a factor of 100.

So, no, so all you care about is the politics, you fucking hack-twat.

 

[The Derp]

Stop making up words, it doesn't help.

I didn't make up a word...I called your propagandist technique out for what it is; an attempt to make you feel better about yourself for having such a shitty argument. So whatabout that? Whatabout your compulsion to whatabout? Why do you have this compulsion to "whatabout" everything? Simple; you do that to deflect the conversation and elicit an emotional response you can then use as a red herring to escape the conversation and/or debate you were never going to win. Why would you never win it? Because you recognize your position of defending Roy Moore is indefensible given your prudence to believe accusations against your political opponents.

That's what's happening here. So whatabout that?

Right now none of these accusations would result in a conviction in a court even without a Statue of limitations.

No one's saying to bring Moore to court. You're the ones who screech about how it should go to court. Not sure why you think that. Moore will not do well under oath during discovery. That's why the threats to sue the WaPo or the accusers are all hot air blustering from Conservative freaks. You're posturing. But we see right through that for what you are; an easily fooled dupe or the worst propagandist in history.

What a fascist fuck you are.

And here's another propagandist technique: projection. Where a propagandist identifies and acknowledges their own deficiencies but because they're so insecure and weak willed, have to convince themselves that they're the victims. Shit, dude, you're like Eric Cartman on this season of South Park...the fuckin' worst.

 

[The Derp]

And right now if it didn't exist you still probably wouldn't get a conviction of him.

No one's looking to convict him. So this is you setting up a straw man argument so you can cast Moore as a victim when he's the abuser. Another technique of KGB-style propagandizing. It's like you have the KGB's playbook right by your side and you're using all of it. Wow.

But since this just a political exercise for people like you, you don't care because the damage you seek has been done.

What damage? I wouldn't consider it damage to reveal that the Conservative nominee is a serial pedo-bear. Shit, you guys should be jumping over yourselves to ditch Moore given what he represents of the Conservative Movement, Evangelical Religious Right, and Republican Party.

 

[The Derp]

He hasn't denied it about the ones that were of legal age.

Remember: he first denied any contact at all with high school girls. Then he went on Hannity's show and admitted he did, even after Hannity gave him every chance to get out.

The problem with all this is that it's not just exclusive to Moore...the blanket reactionary and reflexive denials are something Conservatives do about everything. This stuff with Moore is just another example in a long, long list of blanket denials of obvious truths. That's why I brought up the blanket denials of Trump's when it comes to contact with Russia. You guys reflexively deny everything, even when the truth is obvious and known. So that casts doubt on the defenses you make subsequent to those denials. You get that, right? I'm not being too complex am I?

There's this:

1. Moore denied any contact with these girls.
2. Moore then admitted to contact with these girls.

So since that above is the case, why would Moore's denial of assault be any more truthful than his denial of contact in the first place?

You guys did this to yourselves with your blanket denials. You created this environment where you cannot be trusted to be honest.

I'm not the one acting all holier than though when his own side is more depraved by a factor of 100.

Whatabout this whataboutism? How come you always feel the need to "whatabout"? Is it because you aren't secure enough in your own argument so you are trying to derail me? I'm flattered but not impressed. Why is it you do that? What gives?

 

[sartre play]

What's the reason he has not started already? for that kind of thing would think he would have done it day one.

 

[Pogo]

I guess you are unable to show the class where any name resembling "Clinton" shows up in Roy Moore's name. Or in the name of the publication "Washington Post".

Wassamatta? Having trouble following the topic?

Pogo's Law strikes again.

And the banal hypocrisy of the left strikes the same place as usual.

I didn't know you were on "the left" but it's got less to do with "hypocrisy" than with a desperate deflection engaged because you can't handle the topic at hand.

Also known as the Tu Quoque Fallacy, or its trendy new name, "Whataboutism".

Tu Quoque only works if you are trying to absolve two equal acts, I'm not absolving Weinstein, and if actual evidence comes out against Moore doing something illegal, I won't absolve him either.

Weinstein's first name is "Clinton" is it? I can't even keep up.

Are we finding it a challenge to distinguish between the concept "Roy Moore" and the concept "everybody else in the world"?

Clinton, Weinstein, Spacey, whatever.

Your people were complicit in a decades long coverup of bad behavior, but you were OK with it because the $$ kept flowing to the "right" people.

"My people"?

This may come as a shock but I have no "people". My staff consists of one, me.

I see we're branching out from Tu Quoque to Sweeping Generalizations now. But you go right ahead and quote where my staff of me myself and I were "complicit in a decades-long coverup of bad behavior". This oughta be good.

 

[Pogo]

Dodge, duck dip, dive and dodge.

That's exactly what "whataboutism" is...so every time you invoke anyone else who may have committed sexual assault, you are exercising "whataboutism" in order to avoid having a discussion about the specific topic at hand. That is a deliberate action you are taking in order to deflect the conversation and elicit an emotional response. But it's not going to work with me. So stop.

When has he been asked to do so? And again, hollywood types date people that young all the time, and yet nothing is said about it.

See above.

Now that the accusations are out in the open, why aren't more recent events, if the exist, coming out, ones that would be far easier to verify than 40 year old ones....

Maybe there will be..you don't know. So please, for the second time I am asking what amount of time is sufficient for you in order to believe the accusations? 1 year? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? 29 years? You're saying there is some magic number where a sufficient amount of time has passed in order for you to believe the accusations. So I'm asking you, what is that amount of time? What's the specific cutoff? You're saying "recent" but you don't further explain what "recent" means. I personally think you did that to set yourself up in parameters you can wiggle around as it suits your argument. Very dishonest. Very trollish.

NowBut you are getting the political result you want, so asking questions is necessary, you cheap, dime store hack.

The political result I want is for all Conservatives to be removed from power because all Conservatives are just like Roy Moore...only some of them are less overt about their predatory and manipulative habits. But when it comes down to it, y'all believe the same crazy shit; that it's OK for a 32 year old man to pursue high school girls. Every Conservative thinks that's OK and they use their Bible to justify it.

Stop making up words, it doesn't help

Derp

Right now none of these accusations would result in a conviction in a court even without a Statue of limitations.

What a fascist fuck you are.

I love the Statue of Limitations. I understand it has a plaque reading "Give me your tired, your poor, your 14-year-old girls reduced to their underwear yearning to break free...."

And right now if it didn't exist you still probably wouldn't get a conviction of him.

But since this just a political exercise for people like you, you don't care because the damage you seek has been done.

Actually it's a logic exercise for me, as is almost always the case on this board.

Politicals --- who cares. I don't live in Alabama so it means nothing to me. But as far as 'political exercise' I notice you cut out the end of my post where I noted it's not about criminal convictions anyway. So now you're on to Red Herring.

Yeah I'm keeping score.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

My people"?

This may come as a shock but I have no "people". My staff consists of one, me.

I never met a Democrat that didn't totally defend Bill Clinton.

These are YOUR PEOPLE

 

[Pogo]

My people"?

This may come as a shock but I have no "people". My staff consists of one, me.

I never met a Democrat that didn't totally defend Bill Clinton.

These are YOUR PEOPLE

That's interesting as the thrill of wacthing paint dry, but it's got nothing to do with me.

 

[martybegan]

Stop making up words, it doesn't help.

I didn't make up a word...I called your propagandist technique out for what it is; an attempt to make you feel better about yourself for having such a shitty argument. So whatabout that? Whatabout your compulsion to whatabout? Why do you have this compulsion to "whatabout" everything? Simple; you do that to deflect the conversation and elicit an emotional response you can then use as a red herring to escape the conversation and/or debate you were never going to win. Why would you never win it? Because you recognize your position of defending Roy Moore is indefensible given your prudence to believe accusations against your political opponents.

That's what's happening here. So whatabout that?

Right now none of these accusations would result in a conviction in a court even without a Statue of limitations.

No one's saying to bring Moore to court. You're the ones who screech about how it should go to court. Not sure why you think that. Moore will not do well under oath during discovery. That's why the threats to sue the WaPo or the accusers are all hot air blustering from Conservative freaks. You're posturing. But we see right through that for what you are; an easily fooled dupe or the worst propagandist in history.

What a fascist fuck you are.

And here's another propagandist technique: projection. Where a propagandist identifies and acknowledges their own deficiencies but because they're so insecure and weak willed, have to convince themselves that they're the victims. Shit, dude, you're like Eric Cartman on this season of South Park...the fuckin' worst.

Derp derp derp.

That's a cowards way out, if you really think he did this and actually cared about the alleged victims you would kill for a day in court. Again, it's all politics to you. hack.

You want to eliminate conservatives from the political sphere, and by your posts here you don't care how it gets done. You are a close minded little weasel.

 

[martybegan]

And right now if it didn't exist you still probably wouldn't get a conviction of him.

No one's looking to convict him. So this is you setting up a straw man argument so you can cast Moore as a victim when he's the abuser. Another technique of KGB-style propagandizing. It's like you have the KGB's playbook right by your side and you're using all of it. Wow.

But since this just a political exercise for people like you, you don't care because the damage you seek has been done.

What damage? I wouldn't consider it damage to reveal that the Conservative nominee is a serial pedo-bear. Shit, you guys should be jumping over yourselves to ditch Moore given what he represents of the Conservative Movement, Evangelical Religious Right, and Republican Party.

So you admit this is nothing more than political theater then and all you care about is that D+1?

You get your better chance at D+1, and once you get that your 'concern" over the victims here will evaporate.

 

[martybegan]

He hasn't denied it about the ones that were of legal age.

Remember: he first denied any contact at all with high school girls. Then he went on Hannity's show and admitted he did, even after Hannity gave him every chance to get out.

The problem with all this is that it's not just exclusive to Moore...the blanket reactionary and reflexive denials are something Conservatives do about everything. This stuff with Moore is just another example in a long, long list of blanket denials of obvious truths. That's why I brought up the blanket denials of Trump's when it comes to contact with Russia. You guys reflexively deny everything, even when the truth is obvious and known. So that casts doubt on the defenses you make subsequent to those denials. You get that, right? I'm not being too complex am I?

There's this:

1. Moore denied any contact with these girls.
2. Moore then admitted to contact with these girls.

So since that above is the case, why would Moore's denial of assault be any more truthful than his denial of contact in the first place?

You guys did this to yourselves with your blanket denials. You created this environment where you cannot be trusted to be honest.

I'm not the one acting all holier than though when his own side is more depraved by a factor of 100.

Whatabout this whataboutism? How come you always feel the need to "whatabout"? Is it because you aren't secure enough in your own argument so you are trying to derail me? I'm flattered but not impressed. Why is it you do that? What gives?

Again, Hollywood Hollywood Hollywood you hack. And Clinton.

Dodging again, you dime store hack.

 

[martybegan]

And the banal hypocrisy of the left strikes the same place as usual.

I didn't know you were on "the left" but it's got less to do with "hypocrisy" than with a desperate deflection engaged because you can't handle the topic at hand.

Also known as the Tu Quoque Fallacy, or its trendy new name, "Whataboutism".

Tu Quoque only works if you are trying to absolve two equal acts, I'm not absolving Weinstein, and if actual evidence comes out against Moore doing something illegal, I won't absolve him either.

Weinstein's first name is "Clinton" is it? I can't even keep up.

Are we finding it a challenge to distinguish between the concept "Roy Moore" and the concept "everybody else in the world"?

Clinton, Weinstein, Spacey, whatever.

Your people were complicit in a decades long coverup of bad behavior, but you were OK with it because the $$ kept flowing to the "right" people.

"My people"?

This may come as a shock but I have no "people". My staff consists of one, me.

I see we're branching out from Tu Quoque to Sweeping Generalizations now. But you go right ahead and quote where my staff of me myself and I were "complicit in a decades-long coverup of bad behavior". This oughta be good.

So you didn't vote for Clinton back in the day?

 

[martybegan]

Dodge, duck dip, dive and dodge.

That's exactly what "whataboutism" is...so every time you invoke anyone else who may have committed sexual assault, you are exercising "whataboutism" in order to avoid having a discussion about the specific topic at hand. That is a deliberate action you are taking in order to deflect the conversation and elicit an emotional response. But it's not going to work with me. So stop.

When has he been asked to do so? And again, hollywood types date people that young all the time, and yet nothing is said about it.

See above.

Now that the accusations are out in the open, why aren't more recent events, if the exist, coming out, ones that would be far easier to verify than 40 year old ones....

Maybe there will be..you don't know. So please, for the second time I am asking what amount of time is sufficient for you in order to believe the accusations? 1 year? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? 29 years? You're saying there is some magic number where a sufficient amount of time has passed in order for you to believe the accusations. So I'm asking you, what is that amount of time? What's the specific cutoff? You're saying "recent" but you don't further explain what "recent" means. I personally think you did that to set yourself up in parameters you can wiggle around as it suits your argument. Very dishonest. Very trollish.

NowBut you are getting the political result you want, so asking questions is necessary, you cheap, dime store hack.

The political result I want is for all Conservatives to be removed from power because all Conservatives are just like Roy Moore...only some of them are less overt about their predatory and manipulative habits. But when it comes down to it, y'all believe the same crazy shit; that it's OK for a 32 year old man to pursue high school girls. Every Conservative thinks that's OK and they use their Bible to justify it.

Stop making up words, it doesn't help

Derp

Right now none of these accusations would result in a conviction in a court even without a Statue of limitations.

What a fascist fuck you are.

I love the Statue of Limitations. I understand it has a plaque reading "Give me your tired, your poor, your 14-year-old girls reduced to their underwear yearning to break free...."

And right now if it didn't exist you still probably wouldn't get a conviction of him.

But since this just a political exercise for people like you, you don't care because the damage you seek has been done.

Actually it's a logic exercise for me, as is almost always the case on this board.

Politicals --- who cares. I don't live in Alabama so it means nothing to me. But as far as 'political exercise' I notice you cut out the end of my post where I noted it's not about criminal convictions anyway. So now you're on to Red Herring.

Yeah I'm keeping score.

No I replied before I saw your edit of it.

Touchdown overturned.

 

[Pogo]

I didn't know you were on "the left" but it's got less to do with "hypocrisy" than with a desperate deflection engaged because you can't handle the topic at hand.

Also known as the Tu Quoque Fallacy, or its trendy new name, "Whataboutism".

Tu Quoque only works if you are trying to absolve two equal acts, I'm not absolving Weinstein, and if actual evidence comes out against Moore doing something illegal, I won't absolve him either.

Weinstein's first name is "Clinton" is it? I can't even keep up.

Are we finding it a challenge to distinguish between the concept "Roy Moore" and the concept "everybody else in the world"?

Clinton, Weinstein, Spacey, whatever.

Your people were complicit in a decades long coverup of bad behavior, but you were OK with it because the $$ kept flowing to the "right" people.

"My people"?

This may come as a shock but I have no "people". My staff consists of one, me.

I see we're branching out from Tu Quoque to Sweeping Generalizations now. But you go right ahead and quote where my staff of me myself and I were "complicit in a decades-long coverup of bad behavior". This oughta be good.

So you didn't vote for Clinton back in the day?

That wasn't the question was it.

So let's see, you've got Tu Quoque, Broad Generalization, an assertion you can't quote, and now Moving the Goalposts. I think you're on pace to hit all the fallacies before midnight.

 

[Baz Ares]

WOW!

Roy Moore's lawyer casts doubt on yearbook inscription - CNNPolitics


Then, today after news BS!

2 more accusers come out today, to slam the Cowboy Pedo !

New Roy Moore accuser says he groped her in law office
btw. One 17 the other was 28.

And in other news.

Ivanka Trump on Roy Moore: “There’s a special place in hell for people who prey on children" Ivanka Trump on Moore: 'Special place in hell for people who prey on children'
...

But still, she does nothang about her creepy daddy's rape victims.

Oh, Graham.

Graham: If Roy Moore can't be in a mall, he shouldn't be in the Senate Graham: If Moore can't be in mall, he can't be in Senate

I feel any settlement going back for 241 years should be public records.
Graham wants names of lawmakers accused of sexual harassment revealed: "Just get it out" Graham wants names of lawmakers accused of harassment

 

[martybegan]

Tu Quoque only works if you are trying to absolve two equal acts, I'm not absolving Weinstein, and if actual evidence comes out against Moore doing something illegal, I won't absolve him either.

Weinstein's first name is "Clinton" is it? I can't even keep up.

Are we finding it a challenge to distinguish between the concept "Roy Moore" and the concept "everybody else in the world"?

Clinton, Weinstein, Spacey, whatever.

Your people were complicit in a decades long coverup of bad behavior, but you were OK with it because the $$ kept flowing to the "right" people.

"My people"?

This may come as a shock but I have no "people". My staff consists of one, me.

I see we're branching out from Tu Quoque to Sweeping Generalizations now. But you go right ahead and quote where my staff of me myself and I were "complicit in a decades-long coverup of bad behavior". This oughta be good.

So you didn't vote for Clinton back in the day?

That wasn't the question was it.

So let's see, you've got Tu Quoque, Broad Generalization, an assertion you can't quote, and now Moving the Goalposts. I think you're on pace to hit all the fallacies before midnight.

The old "I stand towering above the partisan divide" crap is pretty lame.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

He should.

Yeah, just like trump sued all the women and children he molester and raped.

Right?

SHAME ON YOU tinydancer

I never want to where you or the rest of the pedo apologists say they care about children.




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com